Talk:Tholo language
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Amakuru in topic Requested move 15 January 2024
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 15 January 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. After more than a month of listing, we are still no closer to a resolution, indeed the most recent comment proposes an alternative title altogether of Tanglang. Editors can continue informal discussion if they wish, and if there's a will to choose a clear alternative title such as Tanglang or anything else, then that can be brought back to RM. For now though, we just stay where we are. — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami Where did you get the name "Tholo"? I can't find any uses of it anywhere. The autonym is "Toloza" (which is used in some English-language sources), and if we're going to use that then I feel this article should be there. Theknightwho (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – Hilst [talk] 12:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's the autonym according to Bradley 2004, as ref'd in the article. Also per the ELP. Neither mentions Toloza. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami No, Bradley in the linked article says tʰo⁴² lo⁴², while this article gives two autonyms (which is contradicatory in and of itself without further explanation), but that doesn't justify us choosing the name "Tholo" since it's an extraploation from (Sinological) IPA and not actually used in any sources. Lama in Subgrouping of Nisoic (Yi) Languages (2012) and Yang in The phonetic tone change *high > rising (2022) both use "Toloza", while Glottolog uses "Tanglang-Toloza". If aren't going to use "Tanglang", then "Toloza" is the only reasonable choice. Plus, the ELP likely sourced the name from here - we can't rely on that, since it's given as an alternative without further comment. Theknightwho (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- what's the -za in toloza, since tholo is the autonym? — kwami (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami Lama gives tho55lo33zɑ33 as the autonym (p. 121). Theknightwho (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- sure. we have 2 versions of the autonym. what is the -za? — kwami (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami There's no explanation in the literature that I can find. The point is not about whether we can deconstruct it - the point is that "Tholo" is not used by any source we can rely on, while "Toloza" is. Theknightwho (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- toloza is not used by any source we can rely on either. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami We can rely on primary sources when there are no secondary sources. What we can't do is extrapolate from IPA to make things up. Sorry. Theknightwho (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- And to be honest, Lama is a reliable secondary source that's used as the main source for many of our articles on Loloish languages - many of which were added by you - and it's also the main source for the structure we use for Loloish languages. Nevermind the number of articles that rely on Glottolog. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- toloza is not used by any source we can rely on either. — kwami (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami There's no explanation in the literature that I can find. The point is not about whether we can deconstruct it - the point is that "Tholo" is not used by any source we can rely on, while "Toloza" is. Theknightwho (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- sure. we have 2 versions of the autonym. what is the -za? — kwami (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami Lama gives tho55lo33zɑ33 as the autonym (p. 121). Theknightwho (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- what's the -za in toloza, since tholo is the autonym? — kwami (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami No, Bradley in the linked article says tʰo⁴² lo⁴², while this article gives two autonyms (which is contradicatory in and of itself without further explanation), but that doesn't justify us choosing the name "Tholo" since it's an extraploation from (Sinological) IPA and not actually used in any sources. Lama in Subgrouping of Nisoic (Yi) Languages (2012) and Yang in The phonetic tone change *high > rising (2022) both use "Toloza", while Glottolog uses "Tanglang-Toloza". If aren't going to use "Tanglang", then "Toloza" is the only reasonable choice. Plus, the ELP likely sourced the name from here - we can't rely on that, since it's given as an alternative without further comment. Theknightwho (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Lingnanhua: - apologies for the ping, but you seemed to be knowledgeable on Loloish languages, so I was interested in hearing your thoughts. Theknightwho (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Do not change to Tholoza / Toloza. The suffix -za means 'people' in many Loloish languages. It's an ethnonym, not a name for the language itself. Likewise, in Bantu languages, you have distinctive affixes for ethnonyms and language names. Additionally, Tanglang is the Chinese exonym, but is not the autonym. The article title is already fine the way it is. I don't see the need to rename or move this article. Lingnanhua (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: And yes, I do research on Loloish languages in Yunnan and have read many of the main Chinese sources on these languages. Non-specialists, including Glottolog, tend to make a mess by renaming and re-classifying everything without consulting specialists. Please ask me if you have any other proposals. I can direct you to the actual Chinese sources and give you relevant suggestions. Lingnanhua (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Lingnanhua My main concern is that I can't find any reliable sources which uses "Tholo", whereas there are two which use "Toloza", including the source which has been used as a major source for the layout/structure of Loloish languages on English WP (Lama 2012). I appreciate that the incluson of the suffix -za might make no sense from an etymological perspective, but it's use that defines words, not etymology, and I'm afraid that "Tholo" hasn't been used anywhere, whereas "Toloza" has. Theknightwho (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- What's the name of the people? That's generally what we use for the language: "X language" = "language of the X". — kwami (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami From what Lingnanhua has said above, it seems to be T(h)oloza. Theknightwho (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- What's the name of the people? That's generally what we use for the language: "X language" = "language of the X". — kwami (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Lingnanhua My main concern is that I can't find any reliable sources which uses "Tholo", whereas there are two which use "Toloza", including the source which has been used as a major source for the layout/structure of Loloish languages on English WP (Lama 2012). I appreciate that the incluson of the suffix -za might make no sense from an etymological perspective, but it's use that defines words, not etymology, and I'm afraid that "Tholo" hasn't been used anywhere, whereas "Toloza" has. Theknightwho (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: And yes, I do research on Loloish languages in Yunnan and have read many of the main Chinese sources on these languages. Non-specialists, including Glottolog, tend to make a mess by renaming and re-classifying everything without consulting specialists. Please ask me if you have any other proposals. I can direct you to the actual Chinese sources and give you relevant suggestions. Lingnanhua (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Do not change to Tholoza / Toloza. The suffix -za means 'people' in many Loloish languages. It's an ethnonym, not a name for the language itself. Likewise, in Bantu languages, you have distinctive affixes for ethnonyms and language names. Additionally, Tanglang is the Chinese exonym, but is not the autonym. The article title is already fine the way it is. I don't see the need to rename or move this article. Lingnanhua (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Languages has been notified of this discussion. –
Hilst [talk]12:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting comment - @Theknightwho and Kwamikagami: I've been trying to figure out what's going on in this discussion and drawing a bit of a blank, probably because I'm not a linguistics expert. But it would be good to have a "layman's" version of what this all means. In particular, what is this "tʰo55 lo33 zɑ33" business? The article says that's the autonym, which would be what the people call themselves. But surely they don't really call themselves "t to the power h o fifty-five lo thirty-three za thirty-three"... Ultimately, we can only be driven by what sources say anyway, so getting to the bottom of that seems imperative. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The digits indicate the tones of the syllables. Doubling the number only means that there isn't a consonant at the end of the syllable. We copied them from one of the sources rather than using IPA phonetic notation, as is standard on WP. — kwami (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Amakuru It comes from using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which is a way to describe how things are pronounced - it's particularly common with languages that don't have an orthography. The superscripts come from Sinological phonetic notation, and are a very common way to represent tones with languages spoken in China.
- In short, the issues are:
- I believe that "Tholo" has been inferred from the IPA (and therefore constitutes original research), as it hasn't actually been used in any sources. In some cases this is necessary, because a tiny language might not be referred to in any English-language sources, but that doesn't apply here: there are two sources which use the term "Toloza".
- On the other hand, "Toloza" is apparently problematic because the -za refers to the people, not the language (i.e. its literal meaning in the langauge is "Tolo/Tholo people").
- However, I counter that by saying that the etymology isn't really relevant - what's relevant is that "Toloza" has been used as the name of the language in two sources, and it's the only name I've been able to find other than "Tanglang", which none of us want to use because it's the Chinese exonym. Neither "Toloza" nor "Tanglang" are used more than a handful of times anyway, so given the choice I suggest we pick "Toloza".
- Theknightwho (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Tanglang language: Just because Tanglang is the Chinese exonym doesn't mean we cannot use it for the title. I mean Français redirects to French language. Glottolog calls it Tanglang-Toloza. The Endangered Languages Project calls it Tanglang. The UNESCO World Atlas of Languages calls it Tanglang-Toloza. Ethnologue calls it Tanglang. OLAC calls it Tanglang. All of these sources mention either "Tholo" or "Toloza" as alternate names, but they all consistently have "Tanglang" as the main name of the language. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 07:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.