Jomeara421
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jomeara421. |
Lenape languages edit
Please let me know if the following are sufficient:
Dean,Nora Thompson. Lenape Language Lessons. Jeffery Norton. 1979. ISBN 978-9993746874
Brinton, Daniel G. A Lenape-English Dictionary. AMS Press, Inc. 1976. ISBN 978-0404157647
Rementer, Jim; Brown, Jan; Motz, David. Lenapei Lixsewakan: The Lenape Language CD-ROM. Vol. I. Delaware Tribe of Indians. Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 2000.
Shoreranger (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Shoreranger, the Dean and Rementer et al items are the Southern Unami dialect that was spoken until recently in Oklahoma. There is no dispute about this. The Brinton et al is a mish-mash of Munsee and Unami words collected in the late 1700s and published by Brinton in the late 1800s. I don't have my copy at hand so can't check what it says in the preface but in any event this is not a scholarly work on Delaware languages. There's no significance to "Lenape" in Brinton's title. There's no single indigenous term that applies collectively to all the Delaware speaking people, which is why 'Delaware' is used. You can look at the item cited in the entry as Goddard 1974 "The Delaware language today", or Goddard 1978 "Delaware" for reliable information on nomenclature. As I said, the change referenced above needs to be reverted, otherwise the entry is incorrect. I add in passing the title "Lenape" for the Wikipedia entry on the Delaware peoples is problematic for the same reasons but that's for another day.
John Jomeara421 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Herbert Kraft also refers to Unami and Munsee, collectively and individually, as Lenape languages. It still does not seem clear what your objection is to the use of the phrase in addition to "Delaware Languages". One does not diminish the other. The use of the term "Lenape languages" does not contradict your assertion that there is no one indigenous term for all speakers of the languages. You seem to agree that Unami is *a* Lenape language, is it possible to assert then that Munsee is not? And, if it is, then the two may be considered together "Lenape languages". Further, it seems a little disengenuous to use "Delaware" so pervasivly and readily when it is an entirely exotic term applied by Europeans, and by that arguement would have even less legitimacy to describe anything without clear explaination of the words origin. The use of both phrases to describe the languages diminish nothing of each other, and can coexist in this article. There is enough new and old citations to justify it. Wiki policy does not require "truth", ones own or someone elses, only "verifiability" for inclusion. If you feel further explaination is necessary I invite you to include it, but I suggest it may only make the article unecessarily cluttered and sacrifice clarity for the purpose to discredit the use of a phrase that takes nothing away from the one you advocate. Shoreranger (talk)
- I have read your obviously well thought out multi-piont comments on my discussion page, and I suggest you encapsualte them and include them in the article with citations. Of particular interest and use to the casual reader (as the expert I suspect will not be refering to Wikipedia) would be the assertion about Lenape/Munsee - not Lenape/Unami, and the common use of the term "Lenape" for a people who spoke more than one dialect. In addition, the assumption of a native people of a non-indigenous word (Delaware) to refer to themselves after their removal to locations far from their traditionally occupied lands would also be helpful, I would think. In addition, the confusion you suggest should also be briefly explained as, the fact is, there is literature - with and without caveats - that either imply or directly refer to Munsee and Unami both as Lenape languages. Therefore, the reference should remain, and if any explanation or elaboration on that use is felt by any editor to be necessary, then they should be encouraged to add it. Shoreranger (talk)
"Chi-miigwech" on the "Odaawaamowin" article edit
Thank you very much for greatly improving the Ottawa language article! Well, as a stub, just about anything would have been an improvement, but your contribution really went a long way to dramatically improve the article. I have assessed it as a "B" as I think now that article tone has been established and it went a long way to describe the Ottawa language, any additional contribution to round it out a bit better will easily bring it from a "B" to an "GA"... at least in the scope of the WP:IPNA/Nish, and with more linguistic details to meet the WP:Lang to make it a "A"... and maybe even be a "FA". CJLippert (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you are interested, I have also worked substantially on the following articles: Delaware languages (almost all content, despite some uninformed misinformation inserted in the first paragraph), Munsee language (all content beyond stub),Eastern Algonquian languages (most content), Mahican language (all content), Powhatan language (all content). I just posted a major revision to Anishinini language (or "Oji-Cree" for those who insist on that title).
- John Jomeara421 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Misc Drafts edit
User:Jomeara421/Ottawa_Morphology
User:Jomeara421/Ottawa_Bits and Pieces
User:Jomeara421/Ottawa_Phonology
User:Jomeara421/Ottawa_Consonants_from Ott lg
User:Jomeara421/Severn_Writing_Drafts
User:Jomeara421/Ojib_Dialects_Misc
User:Jomeara421/Algo_References
Ojibwe Articles edit
User:Jomeara421/Ojibwe Articles
Jomeara421 (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Historical articles edit
Genetic relationship (linguistics)
Genetic relationship (linguistics)
Ottawa language GA review edit
Hi Jomeara421, I have begun reviewing Ottawa language for GA. You have obviously put a lot of excellent work into this, and there are no major problems. I have left some preliminary comments (almost all minor details) at Talk:Ottawa_language/GA1. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I really appreciate someone taking the time and trouble to give it a good going over. I have been following you around, checking out your revisions, and have made a few minor changes - this is mostly in places where there was a lack of clarity in the original, for example one of the quotes I had in the Classification section was very confusing because it was using 'branch(es)' to refer to both Ojibwe and Cree, and my original citation didn't make that clear - so I have cleaned that up so it makes more sense and is consistent with the source material. John Jomeara421 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have finished the review of Ottawa language and passed it as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for all your hard work and for the interesting read! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ottawa phonology edit
It wasn't my intention to be contentious. I'm assuming, though, that my changes to the table are all right since you didn't revert them? The merging of affricate and plosive rows (affricates are also stops, which is why I used that as a catchall term for both and I'd rethink your insistance that "stop" is more accurate than "plosive") was due to the prose that described them as functioning phonologically the same (meaning they're in the same phonological class). The only edit to the table that may need undoing is I moved /w/ to the velar column rather than the bilabial one. /w/ is a sound that typically doesn't fit very well into a table chart like this but the default is that the velar articulation is primary and the labial one is secondary. If your sourcing indicates otherwise, by all means put it back to the labial column. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello edit
Hi John! I just wanted to say how great it is to have another Wikipedia editor who's knowledgeable about Ojibwe/Algonquian-related topics and linguistics. It was just Charlie Lippert for a while, and me doing what I could to help out. (I realize this is like...many many months late, but I haven't really been on Wikipedia in months). I'm excited to see all the improvements that have come about already (congrats on the Ottawa language article, incidentally)! Miigwech for your hard work --Miskwito (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I sent Ottawa language for Peer Review but didn't get much response, so may just send it off for Featured Article assessment. There are almost no featured language or linguistics articles, so it may be an uphill excercise.
- I have consolidated the disparate articles on Ojibwe as Ojibwe language to make it easier for readers I hope.
- I am also working on enhancing the Ojibwe dialects article. The In Progress version is parked here. This is primarily a set of summaries for each dialect, so ideally there should be a more comprehensive article for each dialect, but most are still only stubs with cursory documentation. I'm trying to have the organization reflect that in Valentine's dialect study, which is the most current research; it is doesn't entirely square with the Ethnologue view of the Ojibwe universe, but that's okay.
- John Jomeara421 (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Links edit
Hello, the links I've added in Delaware languages just tried to improve the reading of the concepts. I know some of them are resalted twice, but are concepts in chain and the reading suggest to have in hand all the links togheter in some cases. Regards. --Auslli (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
FA edit
Hey. I'm going to need to remind myself of the criteria for featured articles, but I think the article certainly should qualify, and I'll be happy to help out however I can. I'll get back to you (on the Ottawa language talk page) with any comments as soon as I can --Miskwito (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of North of Superior Ojibwe language edit
A tag has been placed on North of Superior Ojibwe language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
{{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry about that. I withdrew my speedy. However, you should develop the articles in a user subpage and then publish them, because having no ISO code could pose a problem on the Notability side. Thanks, --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 03:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
ON top of that, the articles you mentioned were all language families. The article is about a dialect and the others were languages themselves. I would proceed VERY carefully here, because someone (I will not do it) could take this to AFD. Thanks, --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The codes for Ojibwe dialects do not reflect current research and so are incomplete. Ottawa language is a DIALECT of Ojibwe, and was as short as this article when I started working on it, and had been in that state for several years. The articles I mentioned were not "all language families". There are lots of articles as short as this that have never been taken to AFD. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
FAC comments edit
Hey Jomeara, I have left/am leaving some more comments at the FAC but I should let you know I left them above the last couple comments (my last two comments, originally #9 and 10, were about the references section; I'm trying to keep the comments in order, so as I go through the Orthography section I've been leaving comments above those). Just thought I should let you know so you don't miss them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've finished reading through the article and leaving comments, so I won't be adding any new stuff, just further replies to the comments that are there already. The article is a great resource for anyone interested in learning more about Ottawa, and I will be able to support it without hesitation once all the comments are done being addressed—in fact, if one of my TA friends ever assigned a homework problem about, say, Ottawa syntax or phonology, this article would be a useful starting point even for people with a linguistics background (and it's not often that I can point to a Wikipedia article as a useful resource for anyone in a specialized field!).
- By the way, I was wondering...you might have your hands full now with the FAC, but if you have free time would you be interested in peer-reviewing Chinese classifier? It's an article that I am planning on taking to FAC very soon, I've spent about 3 weeks cleaning it up; the peer review page is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chinese classifier/archive1. I'm mostly just looking for copyediting, as I think content issues are pretty much sorted out, but any suggestions are helpful. Anyway, if you don't have time I understand, I just thought I'd ask. (If we're lucky, we can get two language-related articles into FA before the summer is through!) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your input, it is greatly appreciated. I'll work through the remaining comments over the next day or two.
- I'd be happy to read over the Chinese article once I am done with Ottawa. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I just noticed that the FAC discussion was closed before I had !voted. I was about to support once the the engma issue was cleared up, although I guess it wouldn't have been enough to get the article promoted (because of the other !votes there). Sorry about that. Still, I'm sure the next FAC nomination will be successful, since most of the issues are cleared up by now and the nomination won't get so bogged down by copyediting stuff, so people will have more room to support. For now, I've watchlisted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ottawa language/archive2 so I'll know once it's at FAC again. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Request for review edit
Please review Syntactic Structures and fix/add/improve if necessary. --Zaheen (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have looked briefly at the article and made a minor change some time ago. I don't feel particularly qualified in terms of content, and have not been active on pages outside a few specific areas. I'll see what I can do but can't promise much. Jomeara421 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for Superb cleanup of Stanley Kubrick article edit
References aren't my strong point, though only a fraction of the ones you've improved are mine. Good work.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Just letting you know I nommed this for Good Article status. If you felt it was premature let me know, though you'll have a few weeks to make any changes. I can help on the review if you're away at that time as well. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, in that case I'll withdraw it. Hopefully it will get completed one day though, since so far it was really good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to discern from the above articles if there was a definitive or even vague border where the two overlapped and where it indeed was. Both articles claim that the part of region in which they were spoken radiates to the north, west, and possibly east from what is now New York City. Are there any sources which venture to make a distinction. I gleen that that Munsee may have been used more in the New York-New Jersey Highlands while Unami was the language of those who live along the lower Hudson River and it's bays and across New Jersey to the Delaware River. The map currently used (made by what seems to be less than a expert on the subject) further confuses matters. Would be great if somone could throw some light on the subject.Djflem (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Language-population update project edit
Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.
A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.
Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).
Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.
Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)
Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.
If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.
The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.
Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Unami Language edit
I was wondering if the book Grammar of the Language of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians by David Zeisberger is about Unami or Munsee. For example it gives "leoni" as man, "ochqueu" as woman, "wikwam" as house, "sipo/sipu" as river, and "gischuch" as sun. The spelling system in the book is based off German except that w means /w/ and y means /j/. Also, I assume the doubled consonants are after short vowels like in German and don't indicate geminated consonants. Dngweh2s (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)