Talk:Mayan languages

Maunus, you removed the following:

The wide influence of the Mayan culture and languages during this period is demonstrated by the etymology of the English word "hurricane". At the root of "hurricane" is the name of a Classic Mayan deity associated with tempests called Jun Raqan "one leg"; ^[1] but the word came into English indirectly, probably through Carib via Spanish. This suggests that Classic Maya traders had spread their influence beyond Mesoamerica to the Caribbean region.

...I agree it's unsourced, so fine; but I liked it, so I'm leaving it here in case anyone can find the source on it. --Homunq 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's something interesting: . It claims that the word came originally from Taino - the clear Mayan etymology argues against that, but that could be pasted on afterwards (I know there's a good linguistic term for that but I don't know it. Episomething? Metasomething?). Either way, the contact is documented, and we have an excuse to put back a bit that will probably be the first thing that gets into any elementary school report written from this article. Oh, but the "Carib" should be "Arawak", something I actually suspected but was hoping to hide, again, for better "oh, yeah - caribbean" recognition for the young'uns. Shame on me. --Homunq 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This etymology has also been discussed recently at Talk:Huracan#Verification. --cjllw | TALK 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the "clear Maya etymology" is not very well founded and that the statement about carribean influence was unsourced.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that in K'iche'an-Mamean, [ŋ] became [x]. However, in the table on the evolution of [tʲaʔŋ], Mam, K'iche', and Kaqchikel were shown as having "X" for Proto-Mayan [ŋ], which I had interpreted as a uvular fricative, and changed to [χ] accordingly...is this incorrect? What's the story here? --Miskwito 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a velar fricative, not uvular. Simply used the wrong x. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm asking questions, I'll also point out two things in the Morphosyntactic Alignment tables that caught my eye:

1. Kaqchikel ix-samajel is transcribed as [iʃxeɓel], which I can't imagine being correct, and
2. Kaqchikel rukej is transcribed as [rukjeːʃ] (it was originally "[y]", rather than [j], but I assumed that was an Americanist symbol creeping in by mistake or something and changed it to [j]). Why is [ʃ] here spelled <j>?

Thanks in advance, --Miskwito 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catches. The IPA is wrong in both cases. --Homunq 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I haven't indicated that Kaqchikel sometimes underpronounces word-final consonants, though. Also, it's ixsamajel - the hyphenation is only for the purposes of the illustration.--Homunq 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is undergoing review for FA status. One reviewer has suggested that it needs copyediting. Any help would be appreciated. --Homunq 00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL The request on the page there should be enough. I don't the article doesn't need it so badly that the template would be necessary anymore. Circeus 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard tonal Tzotzil... where is that dialect? Also, I've been told by various people that Mam is tonal, yet that's not mentioned. --Homunq 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mam is not tonal according to any of my sources (England has written her dissertaion on Mam and doesn't mention it)(However Uspantec has been called uspantec mam and is tonal). The tonal dialect of Tzotzil is Tzotzil of san Bartolo (Suárez 1983 p51).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We need some references for the glyph section I have inserted relevant {{fact}} tags. Could someone dig up the references?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't add it myself since I don't have a source for it, but it should probably be noted somewhere that the names of several of the Mayan languages (Acatec, Aguacatec, Chicomuceltec, Huastec, Jacaltec, Sacapultec, Tectitec, Uspantec, and probably Yucatec) are actually Nahuatl, and what the Mayan names for them are (e.g. Huastec speakers call their language Tenek, etc.) --Ptcamn 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

most of those exonyms are neologisms dating back only to the nineteen seventies or even later. Kaufman for example named akatek, tektitek and awakatek. They are formed from the name of the main town they are spoken - towns that have nawatl names - however i think it is arguable if the exonyms can b said to be nahuatl. I think there is good reason to believe that -teco has entered the spanish language as a productive suffix to produce langaue names. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we make the reflist smaller and possibly into two columns?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It shows up as small font size and in two columns for me... --Miskwito 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. Me too now that I'm back at my own computer.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That trick only works for firefox IIRC.Circeus 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That would explain it. The reflist is about a kilometer I'm viewing it in IE again.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here (the computer I'm on right now has IE; my normal computer has Firefox). Bummer! --Miskwito 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna edit this article some, perhaps adding cquotes (the big blue quotation marks which I think are extremely visually appealing, but some folks snobbishly refer to as "cartoon quotes") for a long quotation, but since it's FAC I'll let its dedicated editors make the call. :-) Portions of this quote look useful to me:

• Choi, Jinsook (2002). The Role of Language in Ideological Construction of Mayan Identities in Guatemala. Texas Linguistic Forum 45: 22-31 Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Symposium about Language and Society—Austin, April 12-14.

• Later, --Ling.Nut 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! We were in need of sources to quote on that particular topic!·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lather, rinse, repeat: I dunno what you do or don't want in article, so will post q's that look useful here on talk page:

• Fabri, Antonella (2003). Genocide or Assimilation: Discourses of Women's Bodies, Health, and Nation in Guatemala. In Richard Harvey Brown (Ed.), The Politics of Selfhood: Bodies and Identities in Global Capitalism. University of Minnesota Press, 2003, 246 pp. paper (0-8166-3755-5), hardcover (0-8166-3754-7)

Hey: you guys said ALMG formed in '96; this says '86:

[BOOK] The Maya Tropical Forest: People, Parks and Ancient Cities

JD Nations - 2006 - ... The Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG), formed in Guatemala in 1986, is dedicated to the preservation and revitalization of Maya languages. ...

--Ling.Nut 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds improbable since speaking Maya might get you killed in Guatemala in 1986..but it may be true. This is one reason to find a good reference for it - preferrably the academy itself.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

their own website says 1986 so that's the last word about that.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• This Internet thing is pretty cool, huh. I'm gonna email Al Gore and thank him for it. ;-)
• What kinda stuff do you need? Then I wouldn't be just looking for whatever looks useful... Later --Ling.Nut 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

just something to fill out the {{fact}}-tags.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Maunus, I emailed you a note/ref 'cause I couldn't edit wikipedia, but now it seems to be working, so I added them to the article. Have a look at the note about Grenoble & Whaley (I think it's #14) to see if it fits the article's needs. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The notes are small, but then the refs sections has normal text size again... would smaller look better? Something like this would work:

<div id="articlerefs" style="width:100%;font-size:85%">

</div>

• --Ling.Nut 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The construction of this section bothers me. First it relies on the opinions of a small number of linguists to present a simplified, uncontested, story of the evolution and divergence of the many maya languages. I see too much of a reliance on the SIL (throught the ethnologue.com references) idea of how languages relate without any acknowledgement that much of this is contested by other scholars. The one that got me, though, was the statement, attributed to Lyle Campbell, that the Maya languages dominated the Xinca and Lenca because loan words flowed from Maya to these languages. Gee, loan words indicate contact and do not by themselves indicate domination. Rsheptak 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends on which semantic domains the loanwords belong. SIl is used only as a source to population numbers and locations and for that SIL is quite relibale - ythey are not reliable for genetic classification and they have not been used for this purpose. Campbell and Kaufman are the two foremost experts on mayan linguistic history - their opinions are in no way characterizable as fringe views. Secondly the field of linguists working with mayan historical linguistics IS very small I simply do not know of any qualified contest to their views. (Maya domination of Xinca and Lenca cultures is also well established throuhg archeology and ethnohistory)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maunus, I didn't say their opinions were "fringe", just that there's not total unanimity. But I really can't imagine what evidence you refer to when you wrote "Maya domination of the Xinca and Lenca cultures is also well established through archaeology and ethnohistory". At what time is this domination supposed to take place? Where? Is there some particular piece of literature you coud refer me to on that point, especially about the Lenca? Rsheptak 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Archeology in my understanding is in agreement that by the beginning of the classic period the maya were the dominant power in souhern mesoamerica - both highland and lowland. I have seen references which i cannot remmeber at present to colonial documents describing the xinca polities as subject to postclassic maya states. However I wouldn't object at all to that formulation being changed or struck altogether - it is not really interesting to the topic of lmayan languages. I do think Campbell mentions maya influence in xinca and lenca in his short paragraphs on Mayan languages in Campbell 1997. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway: just because the article is now promoted to FA doesn't mean that it can't bcome better. If you can improve the history section and add other views to some events - by all means please do.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about the recent inclusion of a brief mention about this Mayan-lang. historical doc in the text. Partly since it's more relevant to something like Mesoamerican literature, but mostly because its authenticity (as a genuine and faithful copy of some earlier doc and oral history) has been open to dispute. While it may or may not be genuine, it would probably take up too much unwarranted space here to go into an explanation of it. I think we should have an article on this doc (although the present version needs complete rewriting as it is taken from another site, even if the site's author and the article's are one and the same), but given its unclear status I'd rather not see it rolled into other articles on equal footing as (say) the Popol Vuh.--cjllw | TALK 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(Under "Yucatecan branch":) "It has a rich post-colonial literature, and remains common as the first and even second language in rural areas in Yucatán."

First of all, shouldn't it be something like "remains common as the second and sometimes even the first language in rural areas..." since the sentence seems to be trying to prove how dominant the language is in its region. You wouldn't say something is first, even second if you were trying to prove how awesome it is... Would you? It seems very odd to me.

Second of all, there's no source for it.

Maybe this info is in another source in the article, but it needs the citation next to it. I'm just too afraid to alter anything in a featured article on a subject I can only barely begin to understand. Grandmasterka 09:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "first and even second" doesn't make sense, and I think the gist is that it still has a significant number of native speakers, unlike many of the other languages discussed, so I changed it to that effect.

Also, the source cited (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=yua) says there are 700,000 speakers (plus 5000 in Belize), not 900,000. Not a huge difference, but where did the discrepancy come from? —Keenan Pepper 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"First and even second" is saying that people actually deliberately go to the trouble of learning it - pretty rare for a Mayan language. Given the sizes of the classes I've attended (15 per class in 2 levels at the CALUSAC and 5 per class in 5 classes at the ALMG, for Kaqchikel - there's no other U's in Guate giving these classes and I doubt you could find more than 10 cities with such classes at 1 per city) I'd estimate that under 500 adults per year take a class in a Mayan language in all of Guatemala, that would lead to under 1% of Ladino (Spanish-native) Guatemala speaking a Mayan language. If this is different in the Yucatan, it is indeed more indicative of a public-sphere use for Yukatek than mere first-language use would be. --200.6.235.93 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that you will find that a lot of indigenas have Spanish as their first language and Mayan as their second language and I believe that this sentence refers to them, rather thanthe few ladinos and foreigners who learn it at a university.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that neither Yuri Knorosov nor Tatiana Proskouriakoff are mentioned in the article. Just another anti-Russian conspiracy, I suppose... :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the article about Mayan hieroglyphs which is the field where they made their contributions, neither of them were linguists.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't featured articles freaking protected?

Because that would go against the nature of the Wikipedia. We can't protect every featured article, because some random newbie might have a whole ton of information they're willing to add to the article. We'd rather fight the vandalism that occurs than block all good information. Vandalism is easy to deal with, good knowledge isn't as easy to come across. Jsc83 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus. DrKay 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone put a {{check}} template ("verification needed") in the "Core Quichean" section. I was going to remove it, but then I poked around a bit on Ethnologue. I couldn't find Quetzaltenango listed with these languages; only with Southern Mam. Y'all would know better than I would... Ling.Nut 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The color coding in this article needs to conform with Wikipedia:MOS#Color coding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It had the color coding when it passed FA - and it was supported by User:OaxacaDan who is red/green colour blind and has asked for color coding to be modified in other cases.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

IS THERE A REASON FOR THE MASSIVE INDENTING AND all caps?

IT MAKES IT HARDER TO READ THAN NECESSARY. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-13t13:34z

Yes, there is a good reason why the references are formatted that way. Ironically, it's to make it easier for a reader to identify a particular entry in a lengthy bibliographical listing. For much the same reasons that we use spacesinbetweenwords, paragraphs to break up slabs of text, and why we offset/indent successive comments on talk pages: so that it is easier to pick out where one conceptual unit ends and other begins. Most of the citations here run longer than a single line, and would not be readily differentiated one from the other without some visual cue.

You do not read a bibliography in the same way as you read 'normal' paragraphs of text- the object of a bibliography is to be able to find and identify a given reference. Take a look at any non-fiction book that you may have, that contains a bibliography- I practically guarantee you that it will be formatted by some sort of typographical device —hanging indents, caps, bolding, positioning & spacing, or some combination of these— in such a way that (a) each entry is visually distinct, and (b) the identifying keywords the reader will be looking for (ie, primarily authors' names) can be picked out from the sorted list. Using caps (actually, they are Smallcaps) to highlight keywords obviously serves a different purpose and does not carry the same meaning as when it is done in a NORMAL SENTENCE, like THIS.

There are limitations to what can be achieved through wiki formatting options without making the coding too complicated, and differences in appearance browser-to-browser that exist anyway; may not be a perfect solution, but no one format is going to please everyone. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl#Stylistics is a good section, most of the phenomena it describes are applicable to Mayan languages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.175.189 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl#Stylistics is a good section, most of the phenomena it describes are applicable to Mayan languages as well. It would also be interesting to know if this style predates the Aztec or is their contribution to the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area - I'd suspect the former, given the prevalence in colonial Mayan literature, but I know nothing of mayan epigraphics so I cannot say for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.175.189 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mayan Languages- A Comparative Vocabulary, by John Dienhart, is a compilation of over 400 years of Mayan dictionaries in around 30 languages, with over 45,000 entries. I have just gotten explicit permission from Kristina Dienhart, the daughter of John Dienhart, and from a representative of Southern Denmark University, the copyright owner, to use this data, which exists in electronic form, under CC-BY-SA or GFDL. My intention is to massage this data into usable form (for instance, update the orthography); upload it to OmegaWiki; and create pedagogical material such that it can be used (edited) in primary-school classrooms, especially with XO computers. I hope that 1500 of these computers will soon be in the hands of mostly K'iche' students in Totonicapan, and that hundreds will be in Mayan areas in Belize and Mexico.

I am a programmer and a teacher, not a professional mayanist by any stretch of the imagination, but some of you may remember me from back when Maya languages reached FA. I would love the help of anyone knowledgeable about Mayan linguistics, especially the Mexican Mayan languages, about which I know less than the Guatemalan ones. I would also be especially happy if someone could help me find funding for all or part of this work (I'm happy to work for Guatemalan programmer wages, in the range of $1000-$1500 a month; this project could be anywhere from 2 to 6 months, depending on scope). If you or someone you know would be able to help me, please get in touch with me via "email this user".

Thank you,

Homunq (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mesoamerica)

The ISO codes for the regional dialects of a given language name were decimated. See talk there for details. Homunq (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. However, it would be great if someone would go through the individual pages for the languages and fix this issue up. Now that the ISO codes are cleaned up, we can talk more realistically about regional variation without counting or enumerating dialects. Homunq (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: now that the list article is much cleaner, we should maybe give it more prominence here. Also, it has a consistent, though imperfect, set of population numbers; maybe some of those numbers could replace the haphazard ones here. Homunq (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have used the List of Mayan languages to create the new template of Mayan languages at the bottom of the page. Do you think it will be alright since it is based on the page previously mentioned? —Iudæus (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice looking navbox template, thanks for that. Some of the implied language genealogies in it may not be recognised by all sources, but I don't think that's a major issue and it can be tweaked or qualified if needs be.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "Ixil Triangle" is frowned upon by the residents of the Ixil Community. That is the proper terminology in this recently bloody region. The name "Ixil Triangle" is one given by the outside world of the Guatemalan Central government of the time and its paramilitary troops who raided and indiscriminately killed members of nearly every family.

The proper usage and proper designation of this section and all that refer to it (such as Mayan Languages) should use the proper term, Ixil Community.

Also the use of "Maya" (singular, plural, masculine, feminine) to designate a person or persons is preferable to using "Mayan" as in "The Maya have 21 known variants of Mayan languages" where Mayan is used only as an adjective. This is a small matter of respect for the Maya.Terrydarc (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The article Chan Santa Cruz had some good content added but it uses old Mayan orthography that needs to be updated. This assists in making wiki links more simple and reliable and prevents the creation of multiple new pages for the different spellings. Some of you have the skills so please go to it. --YakbutterT (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted AmericanGringo's edits to because the previous description of the distinction between the usage of Mayan (used only in linguistics) and Maya used in oher fields among them Anthropology (and notably also as an adjective) was more precise. Also he changed Belize with Honduras there are many more maya speakers in Belize than in Honduras (I assume you are referring to the dwindling speakers of Chorti'?) - but both could be mentioned. Also your statement about 31 maya languages was contradictory since guatemala recognizes 21 and mexico 8. We are only referring to luving langauges so cholti and chicomuceltec don't count.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this paper (if the site is still down you may be able to view a google cache here). I just skimmed it briefly (in machine translation I must admit) but the gist is clear: Robertson and Houston argue that Wastek was not the first Mayan language to branch off as a separate family and should instead be grouped with the "Western" languages of Ch'olan and Tzeltalan. I saw the paper after seeing it cited aspprovingly here. If it has some currency it should probably be mentioned in the article as an alternate theory but I don't have a good feel for how well known or respected it is in the field, so I am not sure of the best way to express it in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently noticed that paper as well and I fell much the same as you do. My gut feeling is that Kaufman and Lyle campbell are the autorities to follow. But the theory probably should get a mention. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

btw. Just to be sure, the approving citation is by the author himself.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes you're right. Which makes it count for less naturally, and explains how he knows that an English language edition is in preparation. Still Houston is considered an important scholar, at least in epigraphic circles, and so it may be worth mentioning at least. I suggest a sentence here, or at least in addition to, rather than at Wastek language since that article currently has no information about its relationships other than the family listing in the infobox. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a mention of the alternative classification, and added the paper to the references. Time will tell which classification will prevail.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have a good source on the colonial alphabets? It would be nice to have a table of the main variants, like we do for modern. I added a few words in the hope that s.o. will expand it. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Populations have risen quite abit as shown in this table inserted into the article of 2012 speaker numbers. However the table contradicts the rest of the article and List of Mayan languages. We should update all of the articles speaker numbers so that there isn't any internal contradiction. Also we should use a table format that floats to the right so we don't break the page formatting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hofling's Mopan Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary (2011) gives different IPA values for some of the ALMG orthography. Specifically, he gives ä = [ɨ] and j = [h], both of which are very different than the values given in our table here. Hofling's ALMG orthography also uses apostrophes instead of diacritics. Unfortunately, we don't have any references for our ALMG orthography and I haven't been able to find a primary source for it yet. Does anyone know where we got our table from? Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I also found a paper from 2011 that discusses the ALMG's use of apostrophes, which doesn't match our table. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the apostrophes were converted to diacritics by an anonymous IP in 2012. Since there is no reference or explanation given, I'm going to revert this change. Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that the ALMG uses symbols differently in different languages. BTW. I don't think Hofling means to give ä = [ɨ], but rather [ə]. We ought to mention the variations in the specific orthographies with sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  @Maunus: Yes, it seems that ä is used for a range of roughly mid-central vowel sounds. The confusion around the use of the letters h and j is more concerning, however. It seems unlikely that the ALMG would recommend that [h] be represented as j in some languages and h in others, but I suppose it's possible. The definitive reference seems to be Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala: Documento de Referencia para la Pronunciación de los Nuevos Alfabetos Oficiales, which is about as easy to track down as a 3-legged jackalope. Kaldari (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what kind of sources I can get a hold of. Since some languages don't have [x] it would make sense if h were used in those cases.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has a ton of "citation needed" tags and large amounts of uncited text without them. I don't believe it meets the FA criteria as a result. Tezero (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. You could try fixing it first?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Haven't checked in detail, Maunus, but aren't a lot of the citations print-only? Tezero (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the cited material is, but my guess is that most of the material marked with citation needed can be found in online resources. I am away from a library currently, but would otherwise be happy to find the print only sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Given that you have simultaneously tag bombed two old FA articles on which I am the primary editor, and given that I am already extremely busy with real life stuff and that I am reviewing one of your GA noms and participating in preparing another I will need a little time to get to this article. For Nahuatl I have most of the literature available but for Mayan I need access to a research library which I wont have untill the end of September.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't the Proto-Mayan palatal stops also be notated as [c] [cʼ] or /c/ /cʼ/? That would not only be a graphic simplification but also look more symmetric. Or is there any particular reason not to do this? The phonetic distinction between [tʲ] and [c] is very subtle – I'm not even sure if any language distinguishes both. I mean, technically speaking, a palatal stop in IPA is [c], not [tʲ], which is a palatalised alveolar stop. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should follow the sources. I think that perhaps a palatalized stop is meant, not a palatal stop. Will check.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Campbell also gives them as palatalized alveolar stops (and I don't think the phonetic distinction is so subtle). They are just placed in the column "palatal" for ease of constructing the table without too many empty columns. I honestly don't think this is very confusing since the actual value is given in IPA.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK then; I checked the attested reflexes and I see now why /tʲ/ was chosen rather than /c/ even though /c/ would make the system somewhat more symmetric, perhaps, considering there are no other palatalised consonants.

To my defence, I thought a principle of IPA was that a feature is expressed via a diacritic only if it is not known to contrast phonemically in any attested language, although in the case of palatalisation, that is obviously not true, given that there are many languages, some of them very well-known (Russian, Lithuanian, Irish, Karelian), where series of plain and palatalised stops do contrast. Hmmm.

Also, on second thought, you are right that [tʲ] and [c] are not all that similar. Instead, it is [kʲ] that is relatively similar to [c] and often changes to it. I stand corrected. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Campbell gives a very detailed reasoning of the choice of reconstructing palatalized alveolar stops in his forthcoming chapter in Mayan languages (a preprint of which can be downloaded through his researchgate profile). I don't think that principle you propose exists for IPA, it certainly holds neither for labialization, glottalization, velarization, palatalization, nasalization or a number of other complex articulations. Incidentally there are languages with palatalized palatals (e.g. Mixe languages). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that some scholars do use [c, ɟ] for alveolo-palatal (=strongly palatalized laminal alveolar) stops. It's the normal practice in transcribing Czech and Slovak. Peter238 (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The article will likely need a complete overhaul as soon as this book comes out later this year: Aissen, Judith and England, Nora C. and Maldonado, Roberto Zavala (eds.), The Mayan Languages, 1-20. London: Routledge. One chapter , the historical linguistics one by Lyle Cmapbell, is available in preprint from Lyle Cmapbell's researchgate profile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Campbell, Lyle. 2015. History and reconstruction of the Mayan languages. In Aissen, Judith and England, Nora C. and Maldonado, Roberto Zavala (eds.), The Mayan Languages, 1-20. London: Routledge. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Another set of papers are forthcoming in the Language and Linguistics Compass.[ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002497/current.pdf]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mayan languages/CommentsTalk:Mayan languages/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 23:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The article states that "ejective /tʼ/ and the non-ejective sequence /tʔ/ (previously t' and t7) are both written t'". This is not true when you follow the rules proposed by the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. The ALMG uses hyphens to distinguish these cases, writing /tʼa/ as "t'a" and /tʔa/ as "t-a". For example in Q'eqchi', nat'an /natʼan/ (he topples it) versus xat-atin /ʃatʔatin/ (you bathed). This rule is quite visible when conjugating intransitive verbs that start with a vowel: xin'atin, xat-atin, x'atin, xoo'atin, xex'atin, xe'atin. Note the hyphen in the second person singular. All legal documents and most other documents published in Guatemala follow this rule.

There has been revisions to the ALMG orthography since this article was written. It makes sense to revise it. Do you have a source for this particular bit of info about it?

Julio Alberto Tzul, Alfonso Tzimaj Cacao, et alii: "Gramática del idoma Q'eqchi'", Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín, 1997, La Antigua Guatemala.

You didn't include page numbers - there are many attributions in the article - go back and fix, please. 50.111.54.42 (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Maxwell (2011) is a book chapter, Maxwell (2015) an article in a journal, each 20 pages long. –Austronesier (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The following maps seem are unsourced:

• File:Distribution-myn2.png
• File:Mayan Language Map.png
• File:Map-Maya in Mexico.svg

A455bcd9 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• • eye-roll*. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

    Hi @Maunus,

    I modified my initial message as this is probably not OR, but still unsourced. That being said, I don't understand the eye roll :) I tried to find sources and maps I found are somewhat different, especially along the Guatemala border, next to the Grijalva River, for Huastec in Central Mexico, and in Belize, El Salvador and Honduras:

    • Ethnologue 1
    • Ethnologue 2
    • Origin of Mayans according to HLA genes and the uniqueness of Amerindians
    • Figure 2. Map of Modern Mayan Languages (After Law, 2011, p. 81)

    So do we have sources for File:Distribution-myn2.png?

    (File:Mayan Language Map.png is less of an issue, although locations are quite different for some languages such as Tzotil)

    Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The article gives a whole lot of sources that you could use to make an improved map if you were so inclined. They are incidentally also the sources used for the maps. The discussions leading to the production of the maps, are in the talkpage history and in the FAC page for the article. You might also want to consider that making a map that accurately reflects the data inn a single source, would very likely be a copyright infringement. I don't know if FAC has changed the otherwise longstanding policy that images and maps do not need sources, if they have, I think they made a mistake. In any case, I am not active on wikipedia any more, and am not inclined to jump up and fix stuff when someone cruises by a page I once wrote and find some detail they would like fixed at the threat of delisting it if I don't. I did my share of free work on this website. Now WP:SOFIXIT applies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Maunus: there's no threat at all. I would like either to add the sources to the file description page on Commons (so that anyone else can verify them and update the maps if needed) or to create new maps based on other sources (more recent ones for instance). I'll be more than happy to make a new map otherwise.

"I don't know if FAC has changed the otherwise longstanding policy that images and maps do not need sources, if they have, I think they made a mistake." => I don't know either but according to these 2007 and 2022 discussions, user-made maps should be sourced per WP:FACR 1(c).

"You might also want to consider that making a map that accurately reflects the data inn a single source, would very likely be a copyright infringement." => I wondered the same thing and I asked: it turns out that many maps are ineligible for copyright (see also: Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Maps). So it seems that you can create a new map based on a single source as long as you don't copy its style (see also WP:IMAGEPOL: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work. Technical data is uncopyrightable, lacking creativity, but the presentation of data in a graph or chart can be copyrighted, so a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images.") But of course, I'm not a lawyer... Do you have more information about the risk of copyright infringement? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's almost 20 years ago that map was made, of course I don't remember which maps in the substantial literature that I cited I used specifically. If you're not afraid that copying another map will be a copyright infringement, then I think you should just go ahead and do it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maunus: no worries at all, that's why I asked :) You're right, I'll double check the point about copyright infringement and, if okay, I'll draw a new map. Thanks for your help. Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed in the source (Campbell 2015), it's explained that Proto-Mayan /x/ was actually a uvular fricative. Although the chart in the source indicates a velar fricative, Campbell very clearly explains that this fricative was actually uvular. I propose changing the symbol to /χ/, which is already how it is indicated in the Proto-Mayan wikipedia page. UPDATE: I went ahead and changed the Proto-Mayan velar fricative to a uvular and moved it to the uvular column, in accordance with Campbell (2015). Casinator (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)