User talk:Thiyopa

Thank you for correcting the spelling errors on Lakota language. I had a feeling that there were problems with the nasals, but had never bothered to check. (I don't speak Lakota, though I have studied it). Cnilep (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help when I can. Thiyopa (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed you're mention of Czech as a language which has been succesfully revitalized because as far as I know Czech has never been either endangered or subject to revitalization efforts. However thinking about it I came to think that you might have meant Slovene which was supressed after WWII and achieved new momentum when Slovenia became a nation in 1991. I still don't think the Slovene case is comparable to the Hebrew one since Hebrew was essentially a dead language being returned to life but slovene fits the case of a succesfully revitalized language much better than Czech.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did mean Czech. Even though the situation of the Czech Language was not as bad as it is some of the indigenous languages today, there were quite a few similarities. The Czech language revival is mentioned even on Wikipedia (see: Czech National Revival: Czech National Revival was a cultural movement, which took part in the Czech lands during the 18th and 19th century. The purpose of this movement was to revive Czech language, culture and national identity.)

Although the language was still spoken by a considerable number of people during the revival it is very likely that it wouldn't have survived without the effort. Thiyopa (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the 19th century revival. I really don't think that is a special case since it was the same for many, many languages of Europe that they were not languages of literacy until the nationalist period of the 19th century, and that they were subject to a period of revitalization in the 19th century. The same was the case for Norwegian for example, and even to some degree for Danish before 1700. Almost all of the lesser languages of Europe were marginalized during that period. I will not object if you insert Czech again - but I really don't think that the parallel between Hebrew and Czech is good. Much more impressive feats of revitalization exist in my opinion - e.g. Catalan or Irish.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Thiyopa, I hadn’t noticed that you are likely to be a Lakota (or, anyway, you can speak the language, which is not actually commonest) and so, that your knowledge of the case must be inevitably mach wider than mine.

I am very sorry for the misunderstanding originated by my methodological scruples. In fact, I think that Wikipedia is an interesting, but extremely delicate, instrument (which, BTW, I’ve been lately devoting a lot of time to): everybody can write on it what they like best, but every statement that one intends to report must be drawn out of a publication (which is to be cited, too). Thus, when I read Gibbon’s position (which did not finally seem to me so odd, compared with the heaps of books reporting the notorious misnomer of Yanktons and Yanktonais, etc.), I myself could have directly corrected the article (which might appear too categorical) by reporting his opinion. Which, being in doubt, I would not do preferring to open a debate on the talk page. Should, however, I or anybody else, have corrected the article, the correction could have, in its turn, properly rectified or reverted not by simply arguing that Gibbon is not a linguist, that he does not cite his sources, and so on, but only by reporting the precise position of other authors refuting Gibbon’s thesis (and by explicitly quoting them). If one does not cite the source whence what one writes is drawn, he is just expressing his personal opinions, that is to say that one is making a (however minor) “personal research”, which is (rightly) not permitted by Wikipedia guidelines. The article Sioux Language itself bears, at its beginning, a “template” asserting that “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can”, as it has been written without minutely complying with Wikipedia’s operation rules (even though I have noticed you have already cleaned up around a lot). So, if you had written in an article your statement that Parks/DeMallie and Ullrich’s “classification has been generally recognized by Siouan linguists” I ought to have added the templates ^[specify] or ^{[need quotation to verify]} (or something alike, I am not very skilled!)

As to me, if I am interested in, read and now even write about American Indians, it is just because I have been loving these populations since I was a child and I have been scandalized, after growing up, by the shameful treatment they were forced to undergo. If, the first time I happen to contact a person belonging (or very close) to this people, she/he should draw the conclusion (or even the doubt) that I prefer Ethnologue or Gibbon to people who spent whole years of their lives working with the Sioux, it would actually hurt me a lot. I was just raising a question of method (and I had not had the chance of reading either Parks/DeMallie or Ullrich): perhaps, you and those that know their work, might try to better explain the characters of that work, quote them more minutely and not avoid citing, as well, a good deal of the disinformation which is still being spread about the matter on world literature. Otherwise one risks not being helpful to all the people, even less informed than I, who will chance to read the article concerned.

All the best. --Jeanambr (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Since I would like to correct wrong articles about Sioux in the Italian Wikipedia conforming to Wikipedia guidelines, and since I haven’t at my disposal either Parks/DeMallie or Ullrich, I wonder whether you might let me know two precise quotations, which I can transfer onto the articles, about both the refutation of the traditional three-partition Dakota-Nakota-Lakota (namely, the misnomer of using "Nakota" for Yanktons and Yanktonais) and the relations (mutual unintelligibility) between the three Sioux dialects (or languages) and the two Assiniboin-Stoney ones. Of course, only if you have time and feel like doing.

P.P.S. I think I found the weak point of my examples about German and Italian: in either case there has existed for centuries a generally recognized standard language (in Italy a literary one) and dialects yield to it, however far from or close to it they are. It seems a historical matter much more than a linguistic one.

Dear Jeanambr, if you let me know your e-mail I can e-mail you scan's from Park&DeMallie and from Ullrich's dictionary. Note also, that the comparative tables that I created for the article Sioux Language are also based on these two studies. The comparative tables are actually the most important in deciding the dialect classification - apart from statements from fluent speakers, obviously; I have relatives among the Yanktons and Yanktonais and they would never call themselves Nakota.

BTW, if you are truly interested in the language the New Lakota Dictionary is the most significant material published since Deloria's grammar and texts. So it is worth having it. It is inexpensive and can be easily ordered from Amazon. Thiyopa (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new article concerning especially the Nakota, with a link from Sioux language: see Sioux language's talk page or . Ciao.--Jeanambr (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)