Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proto-Siouan language/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proto-Siouan language

Proto-Siouan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 21 August 2026, 04:46 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's hard enough to reconstruct what the United States looked like before first contact, but another still to reconstruct its intangible linguistic landscape. Thanks to the tireless work of those like Albert Gatschet, James Owen Dorsey, John R. Swanton, and Robert L. Rankin, all of whom collected countless of hours of work with the last speakers of languages now long dead, what the New World looked like from a linguistic perspective is a little clearer. I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Kasak on this topic, who kindly provided me a more-or-less lost resource and some guidance, while working on getting it to GA. Now, I feel this article is ready for the FAC gauntlet. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran

Glad to comment on more historical linguistics content. I'll preface this by saying that for a linguist, I am not familiar with Amerindian languages at all, but I will mostly comment from the perspective of someone who is otherwise informed in linguistics. For the more technical sections, this is probably your intended audience.

Thanks for dropping a line here, Kisseran. As usual, your insight is appreciated; comments below. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Starting with the lead:

  • between 3000 BC and 2000 BC before splitting off into the Eastern and Western Siouan languages — this is ambiguous between two interpretation: was Proto-Siouan spoken throughout the millennium, with the split securely dated to 2000 BC, or was Proto-Siouan spoken before splitting off into Eastern and Western branches, which took place some time within the millennium?
  • their presence in and around Appalachia is supported by toponymic and onomastic data. — as a non-American, it was slightly disorienting to figure out that Appalachia and the Ohio River Valley are largely overlapping regions. I don't know if this is a real problem though. I was mostly surprised that the Iroquois extended further south than I'd thought.
  • Hm, I hadn't considered that that overlap wouldn't be more-or-less clear by itself. Any suggestions on clarification? And yes, the Cherokee are an Iroquoian people mostly native to western North Carolina. It's quite the journey from the Finger Lakes. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
I think a map in the lead would certainly help, if you can get ahold of a good one. Otherwise I can't think of a suggestion. If I could, I would have mentioned it. Kisseran (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • each distinguishable by length — I would say something like "each distinguishing length" or "each distinguishing long and short variants" because the current wording can also be interpreted as each of the vowels being different in length from each other.
  • Good catch. Went a middle path here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • distinguished between at least two tones
  • It has been reconstructed with — I would be consistent with either saying the language had feature X or has been reconstructed with feature X, unless its alignment and word order are particularly controversial among the other features mentioned in the lead.
  • I'd say alignment and word order are the most secure grammatical reconstructions. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • fairly complex — this is a bit vague. If it is noted as complex, then I would just say complex. Otherwise, I think that judgment can be left to the reader.
  • using sound symbolism, phonesthemes, and apophony — I'm not sure what sound symbolism and phonesthemes have to do with morphophonology.
  • as ways of conveying semantic meaning — I'm tempted to invoke POSA and say that if these were used with no apparent meaning, then that would be worth mentioning. If you leave it in, perhaps opt for a more succinct phrasing like "to convey information".
  • Great point that I came to independently while working on another comment above. Great minds, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • linking the family with the Yuchi language — "the family" as in Catawban or Siouan?
  • Kind of both? One model places it as a third prong on the Siouan–Catawban tree, another considers it a second prong on the Catawban tree. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • have largely been met with criticism
  • Y'know, I see this construction every once in a while and I don't think it's grammatical. I would say that "XYZ film met with critical praise" not "XYZ film was met with critical praise", though I cannot for the life of me conjure up a linguistic explanation for it. My best explanation is that "XYZ film meets with critical praise" is much better than "XYZ film is meeting with critical praise". Wiktionary seems to prefer this one too, though lists one with "be" as an alternative, though (I think?) for a different sense than I'm intending. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
That is a curious judgment indeed. Perhaps there is influence from "encountered"? In any case I think the easiest solution here is to just omit mention of criticism in the lead here, since that can be reasonably inferred from its lack of acceptance. Kisseran (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Needless to say, this is an expertly crafted article, so most comments will be minor nitpicks. More to come. Kisseran (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Looking forward to the coming comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on:

  • The interrelatedness of the language family — I would suggest either "The interrelatedness of the Siouan languages" or "The language family", since languages in a language family are interrelated by definition.
  • I think I've found a middle path here that works. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • most-widely recognized members, the Sioux — this phrasing doesn't really make sense to me because the members of language family are languages, not people
  • Would most-widely recognized ethnolinguistic group work better? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that would make more sense to me. On second thought it is a rather difficult concept to convey. Kisseran (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • the Great Plains of the United States and Canada — perhaps clearer as "the Great Plains of North America" or just "the Great Plains", since a reader who hasn't heard of the region might be led to assume that there are two different regions named the Great Plains in the US and Canada.
  • In 1816, the work of the German scholars — I would omit "the work of" here, or, if publication is dated significantly differently from the work itself, rephrase as "In an 1816 work,"
  • described the relationship between Catawba and Woccon — described as what? the sentence afterwards implies that the description wasn't in a phylogenetic sense. Also, using the term "phylogenetic" to describe work done in 1816 or 1836 seems anachronistic to me, since (phylo)genetics did not meaningfully exist in 1836 in either biology or linguistics.
  • built significantly
  • it is difficult to estimate the number of languages spoken, as — or rephrase it the other way around, but this is currently redundant

Kisseran (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Onto Origins:

  • a methodology developed by the American linguists Morris Swadesh and Robert Lees — so glottochronology? I don't know how I feel about the section not making it clear that the glottochronology of Swadesh and Lees's era are now mostly regarded as obsolete and misguided. If the secondary sources are particularly limiting on this matter, I would at least mention of dates of these studies as context.
  • No, you're right; Rankin makes it pretty clear it's bunk science. I've just deleted Grimm's and Headly's analyses.
  • commonly-derived — this is also ambiguous with the reading "frequently-derived"
  • 'corn' — I wouldn't use quotation marks here.
  • must precede its introduction — is this worded this strongly in the cited source? there's obviously the somewhat unlikely but conceivable possibility that the term was lost.
  • Yeah, Rankin kind of echoes your thoughts. Rephrased. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • agricultural techniques related to its cultivation — as opposed to other kinds of techniques related to its cultivation?
  • agricultural effort — this phrasing doesn't sit right with me. would "crop" work?
  • Tried something else. Source seems to imply that it's agriculture at this time but doesn't specify. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Mississippi Valley Siouan was beginning to split into its subfamilies — this is particularly pedantic but I would rephrase into something like "varieties of Mississippi Valley Siouan began to diverge", since it's not really splitting into a subfamily but splitting into languages that eventually split into more languages in turn.
  • For example, the Dhegihan languages adapted a borrowed term from the Southeast – perhaps from a Muskogean language – with a suffix; this nominal suffix, *-se, was reanalyzed in several languages by folk etymology to -zi meaning 'yellow'. — I don't see any indication of dating in this example, so it is unclear to me how this example relates to the dating of the split.
  • Serves just to explain that we know they don't share a term for it, but the explanation is a little long so I cut it down. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Is the Dhegihan term supposed to be for the same concept as the Ho-Chunk term discussed immediately afterwards? Just saying "a borrowed term" without mentioning what it means is strikingly vague to me. Kisseran (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, the paragraph break made it more ambiguous than intended. Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on:

  • Earlier scholarship, namely the work of the American archeologist James Bennett Griffin — how early?
  • during first contact with European settlers — what does it mean for a homeland to be somewhere during first contact with European settlers, considering that the language family split off thousands of years prior? Also, this has the ambiguous interpretation of the work by James Bennett Griffin taking place during first contact with European settlers, which I can only tell is unintended by hovering over his link.
  • I don't think there's any reason to think that the Proto-Siouan people made any substantial migrations outside the Ohio River Valley prior to the incursions of the Iroquois. For what it's worth, the ORV is a massive area, from Western New York to Mississippi; it's possible several different Siouan groups migrated around in it or others left and died out or left and assimilated to another group. I can continue to search for more archeological sources, if you think that's beneficial. Also, fixed the Griffin issue, I think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
I suppose "during first contact with European settlers" could be omitted then? Unless the theory provides an earlier, different homeland, in which case that should probably be mentioned instead. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • It appears that the push westward — is this doubtful in some way? Also, I would probably rephrase "the push westward" as "westward migration"
  • No, I don't think that's doubtful. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • not instantaneous nor universal — I would write "neither instantaneous" but this is just a personal preference
  • the Lakota are attested near modern-day Chicago in 1648, putting estimates of their migration over the Mississippi River sometime around the turn of the 18th century — It's not apparent to me that there's a logical connection between being near Chicago in 1648 and crossing the Mississippi at the turn of the 18th century
  • Yeah, I have a bad habit of dangling participles, evidently. Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Other members of the Siouan family — again the members of the Siouan family are languages, not people
  • adopted by the Iroquois — this probably requires some explication. What does it mean for an ethnic group to be adopted by the Iroquois?
  • That's probably true. Give me some time to find some high quality sources; a quick search revealed... less helpful sources than I had hoped. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • indigenous to modern-day Ohio before being forced out by the Iroquois — does this cause them to stop being indigenous there? "spoken in modern-day Ohio" would make sense to me.
  • placed it phylogenetically in the Siouan family — can a language be placed inside a family any way other than phylogenetically?

Kisseran (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Phonology:

  • Reconstructions of Proto-Siouan's vowel system indicate — again I would be consistent with just saying "Proto-Siouan's vowel system had"
  • may have had nasalized forms — "may have" is redundant with "it is possible that"
  • mark for vowel length — I would write "contrast" or "distinguish"
  • earlier research did not typically account for length at all — I'm presuming this means "earlier fieldwork didn't indicate vowel length in transcriptions" but this could use a little bit of clarifying. Perhaps the sentence is about earlier reconstructions of Proto-Siouan, or that earlier fieldwork was ignorant of a length distinction at all.
  • had different effects on tone in the daughter languages — does either "probably" or "somewhat" scope over this part of the sentence?
  • resonant — is the usage of "resonant" overwhelmingly conventional in Proto-Siouan scholarship? If not, using the more generally common term of "sonorant" may be preferable, as in Kasak 2024.
  • Resonant seems to be preferred by the literature, but I have no dog in this fight and if it's good for Kasak, it's good enough for me. Switched. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
There was probably some mix-up with revisions because this doesn't seem to have happened. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Nasal vowels are notable in Proto-Siouan in part due to the typologically-rare absence of nasal consonants. — this is not a sensible statement and is not supported by the cited sources. Nasal vowels are rather mundane, and occur even more frequently when nasal consonants are absent (cf. the relevant WALS chapter, which is also cited in Blevins et al. 2020 p. 327). Also, I don't think "typologically rare" requires a hyphen.
  • Hm, that's not what I was trying to express at all with that. I've just removed it since I'm not really sure how to reword it and it's kind of covered by the following sentence anyhow. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Is the usage of IPA conventional in Proto-Siouan scholarship? If not, I think the presentation of the consonant table may be somewhat IPA-centric. I might prefer presenting the Americanist notation in the table (with a similar treatment to conventions in transcribing PIE reconstructions), perhaps with IPA equivalents in footnotes. Of course disregard this if this presentation is how it's done in the literature.
  • They mostly employ Americanist conventions, though inconsistently and with distinctions. I've added angle brackets for clarity's sake. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clearer here. My concern was that putting IPA first after the asterisk and then Americanist notation in angle brackets gives the undue impression that IPA is somehow less arbitrary (i.e. "IPA is the sound, and the Americanist notation is just how the sound is written"). In Proto-Indo-European phonology, for instance, we write *y and not *j ⟨y⟩. I suppose the norm for living languages on Wikipedia is to use IPA regardless of the dominant convention in the relevant field, but for reconstructed proto-languages the benefits to using IPA are diminished, especially considering that some linguists object to using IPA in principle, over disagreements about the reality and nature of reconstructions. I can totally see the opposing argument though, in prioritizing consistency across Wikipedia articles and perhaps accessibility to the people who are used to IPA but may be confused by the Americanist notation. I won't dwell on this point any longer. Perhaps other reviewers in a broader audience could provide more insight into the practical utility of IPA presented as it is here. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • it may represent a clustering with a laryngeal or some other consonant — clustering of *r with a laryngeal or some other consonant?
  • may have led to this outcome — what outcome?
  • Linguists have attempted to remove these phonemes from the roster, though without a clear origin they have remained a part of the historical analysis — I would rephrase perhaps something along the lines of "Analyses that remove these phonemes from the inventory have been attempted but remain unsuccessful/unaccepted"
  • This analysis argues that — "They argue that" or "This analysis is supported by the argument that"
  • the behavior of these sounds in clusters – progressive assimilation causing the voiced consonant to voice the following voiceless one – is more typologically common than the inverse. — this is not what Blevins et al. write on the cited page. The relevant assimilation process under discussion is anticipatory/regressive, not progressive. The relevant reasoning is that Crosslinguistically, voice assimilation in obstruent clusters is common, while voice assimilation between a sonorant and a preceding obstruent is rare, and I am unsure what "the inverse" is supposed to mean.
  • Yeah, I just straight up misread here. I've removed it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • This theory also helps to explain some of the phonological properties found in Lakota — this sentence gives the impression that this is a different, additional phenomenon when the phenomenon in question, presonorant voicing, is precisely the one discussed in the previous sentence. I think it's fine to leave this sentence out but it should be rephrased if left in.
  • Several Siouan languages either retain a preaspirated series or have a descended set of reflexes — it is logically impossible for a language to not have a reflex of a sound present in its proto-language. Perhaps you meant "a distinct set of reflexes"?
  • single unit — I find it unlikely that the piped redlink will ever be created, and in the event that it is I find it still unlikely that it would be relevant here.
  • the preaspirated series was not originally phonemic — this should be clarified to say that they weren't phonemic in pre-Proto-Siouan. Otherwise, it seems to contradict other parts of the article. Also, this is a minor pet peeve, but I would prefer "contrastive" over "phonemic" to be more theoretically neutral
  • Done. 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • This change, however, was later phonemicized and several sets of cognates attest the set as distinct phonemes — one minimal pair here would be helpful, if that's convenient to come by
  • I'll see if I can find a pair in the comparative dictionary, if that works. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • lost this series during their linguistic evolution — I would rephrase as "later lost this series" because "during their linguistic evolution" as a phrasing is both redundant and questionable. I would also specify how they lost the series, if it's simple enough (e.g. "they merged this series with the plain stops" if that's true)
  • Done. I'll see if I can find anything on the how those languages lost them, but I think it'll be slim pickings. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • these were independently motivated → these changes occurred independently
  • this series either remained preaspirated or converted the consonant into a plain geminate. → preaspirated consonants either remained preaspirated or changed into plain geminates
  • Rankin describes the minimalist form without phonological conditioning as pre-Proto-Siouan since the language may have had a more parsimonious inventory at an earlier date — it doesn't seem to me from the source that describing this as pre-Proto-Siouan and the language possibly having had a simpler inventory are logically related in this way. I would also be wary of paraphrasing "simple" as "parsimonious" here.
  • Rankin uses the term pre-PSi here though ("If we remove the features of PSi phonology that now appear to have been conditioned, we arrive at an altogether different phonological inventory for pre-proto-Siouan"). Open to making this clearer if you need though. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Yes, he does, but the logical relationship is not clear. The sentence in the article as written gives the impression that the smaller inventory was just lying around and someone needed to give it a label. Instead, it's probably better characterized as an empirical (to the extent that that's possible) result about pre-Proto-Siouan, a construct that would exist whether or not its proposed phonological inventory is simple. The problem can also be seen as of course, every language "may have had a simpler inventory at an earlier date" (and may also have had a more complex inventory at an earlier date). Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
  • This inventory is also a closer match to that of the Catawba language — Hold on. Taking a glance at the sources, it seems like the Proto-Siouan discussed in this part of the article is, by the lead and the Wikipedia naming scheme, actually Proto-Western Siouan, to the exclusion of Catawban. This is rather bizarre to me, and my confusion may have arisen from my lack of familiarity with the subject, but at least some part of the article needs to clarify this.
  • Yeah, "the Siouan langauges" is a sometimes ambiguous term in the literature. Looking back on some of the sources, it looks like many (most?) of these are for Siouan proper alone. It looks like I had originally viewed many of the Catawba notes as descendant examples rather than comparative ones. Just the kind of nightmare realization every editor hopes to discover during FAC... In any event, bear with me as I review the present sourcing on the Catawban branch and do a little restructuring. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, that was less involved than I had anticipated, but I think I've caught the scope errors anyway. This is now strictly about the Siouan proper parent language with notes on its relationship to the Catawban languages. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at your changes, the scope problem could definitely have been a lot worse. Do you think the related article titles should be changed around too? It seems like Siouan languages should be moved to Siouan–Catawban languages (currently a redirect) and Western Siouan languages should be moved in turn to Siouan languages. Proto-Siouan–Catawban language should probably de-redirected and Proto-Siouan–Catawban retargeted. The navbox at least requires no changing. Kisseran (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Looking a little deeper, it seems like Glottolog includes Catawban under just "Siouan", which is not particularly helpful. Maybe the potential confused readers will just have to live with it. Kisseran (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing with phonology:

  • The stressed vowel was typically long — I would pick either "stressed" or "accented" and stick with it, unless you distinguish the two (like in Kiparsky's Basic Accentuation Principle), in which case that should be clarified
  • The language's maximal syllable structure
  • though these syllable-initial clusters
  • roots routinely comprise CV structures — is this "roots are single CV syllables" or "roots are sequences of one or more CV syllables"? Also, I presume you've given this some thought, but I would think of roots to consist of rather than comprise CV structures.
  • Done. I hadn't really considered it, but I kind of like your wording better. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  • In Mandan and Lakota, for example, the Proto-Siouan prefixes *wa-, marking inanimate absolutives and indefinite third-person objects, and *wi-, marking animals, often collapsed into a single-phoneme prefix independently in both languages, leading to a CCV syllable cluster with its stem. — this doesn't seem to exemplify the phenemonon discussed in the previous sentence. I would rather expect an example of a Proto-Siouan CCV syllable rather than something explicitly not so in Proto-Siouan.
  • Annoyingly, none of the three sources which reference this have a Proto-Siouan example; I've repurposed the above excerpt. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
  • are often the result of phonesthemic forms
  • Earlier research suggested that Proto-Siouan had syllable-final glottal stops, but the evidence for these codas actually suggest they are actually the result of excrescence between vowels rather than preserved liaison. — this needs to be rephrased entirely because the cited page mostly concerns Mandan syllable structure, and talks about what seems to be a Mandan process in which [ɾ], not the glottal stop, is inserted.
  • My read of this was that the Mandan data was being used to explain how that couldn't be correct; otherwise there really isn't a reason to bring up PSi, right? It is ambiguous though; I've removed in the meantime. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
How couldn't what be correct? To be honest, I don't understand what "rather than preserved liaison" means at all. I only checked the source because I was unable to understand the sentence, and the source is perfectly comprehensible to me. Again, sorry for not being very specific about my problem with the sentence. I've really tried to make sense of it and I can't. Kisseran (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Some reconstructed CVC clusters — reconstructed roots? stems? words? Certainly not clusters. Also, I think an example here could help.
  • apocopic root extensions — this could be clarified a bit. Does this mean root extensions that have undergone apocope, or root extensions that cause apocope, or something else?
  • On re-read, I'm not sure this is actually applicable to the whole. Removed for now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • high, which is marked with an acute accent (◌́) on the vowel, and non-high, which is unmarked — a general observation that "marked" is quite an overloaded linguistic term, but I'm not too bothered about it since they don't conflict here.
  • Yeah, I mulled this one over and couldn't come up with a better wording. Open to idea, of course. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
  • If the accented vowel had a falling tone, it usually lost this tone and became glottalized. — (1) The source doesn't seem to indicate that this was "usually" lost: instead it suggests that "several Siouan languages" have falling pitch that gives rise to excrescent glottal stops. (2) The source also seems to suggest that a syllable with falling tone always, not just "usually", became glottalized. (3) Accented syllable, not accented vowel.
  • I find that that tabular presentation of the data for 'give' in the cited source to be quite clear and helpful for understanding.
  • a suffix, or a postclitic — just one suffix and one enclitic? This is worth clarifying to avoid misinterpretation.
  • Source isn't terribly helpful here unfortunately: The actual surface pronunciation of these otherwise under-specified stem-final vowels is determined in context by what item follows. The options are: (a) nothing, i. e., the stem-changing verb is in phrase-final position, (b) another content word, or (c) a suffix / post-clitic item.
It seems clear in the source that the list of following items is exhaustive, but it is not so clear in the article that the list of exhaustive. I think there's a possibility that people could assume that there's one suffix out there that affects ablaut, but every other suffix does not affect ablaut. Kisseran (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • this symbolic use of language — I kind of get what you're trying to say here, but all language use is symbolic.
  • The description of the fricative gradation should probably make clear that the fricative gradation involves different fricatives corresponding to different grades/intensities. I would be a bit confused by this section if I hadn't already heard of this phenomenon.

Kisseran (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Grammar:

  • almost certainly had — I would be consistent again between "almost certainly had" here and just plain "had" below. Based on what you said previously, I think casting more doubt on this than the items below is probably unintended.
  • with adverbs able to appear on either side of the verb — looking at the source, this seems to be reasoned separately from the widespread OV syntax, but currently it is phrased as if adverb position were also inferred from OV syntax.
  • Still, the language appears to have been substantially more analytic than its modern descendants. — this sentence a bit too vague to be helpful. Firstly, this sentence is only useful to someone who is already roughly familiar with the grammar of the modern Siouan languages. Secondly, "substantially more" still doesn't convey much information. Given the sentences that immediately follow, Proto-Siouan could only be so analytic.
  • Typologically
  • however, are known to have had a different alignment — what alignment?
  • but they are unique in this way among Siouan languages — would it be correct to say "Only Ofo and Biloxi have a different alignment"?
  • these are not reconstructable in Proto-Siouan — is this not reconstructable as in "we know Proto-Siouan probably had this, but the forms are unclear" or "Proto-Siouan probably didn't have this"?
  • The verb template in Proto-Siouan is somewhat differentiated from those of its daughter languages as many languages developed innovative forms to the original template — this sentence is also both generaly vague and also unhelpful unless you're already decently familiar with the descendant languages. It could also be rephrased to be more concise.
  • At least three locative prefixes – *a- ('on, at'), *o- ('in'), and *i- ('toward') – as well as the general instrumental prefix *í-, were probably proclitics and not true affixes in Proto-Siouan, or even pre-Proto-Siouan — I would rephrase to say that these proclitics developed into prefixes in the daughter languages, since it can be a little confusing to read that prefixes were not prefixes.
  • The language's first- and second-person agent markers – *w(a)- and *y(a)-, respectively – preceded agent markers — Not what the source says, nor is it intelligible to me. Presumably you meant to say something about patient markers.
  • these markers similarly avoid typical phonological processes — similarly to what? which typical phonological processes?

Kisseran (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on:

  • These verbs comprise a fusion of a root verb, typically a bound morpheme — (1) Do you mean "fusion" as in fusion or just concatenation? (2) Again I would think of verbs to consist of its constituent morphemes. (3) It's not clear to me how any kind of verb can also be a bound morpheme. Perhaps "verbal root" or just "root" would be clearer.
  • made use of → used
  • These verbs – *rą́:ke ('sit'), *rahé ('stand', inanimate), *hą́:ke ('stand', animate), *ʔų́:ke ('lie'), and *rį́: ('move') — presumably reflexes of these verbs
  • virtually all Siouan languages — I'm not sure if I would describe "all Siouan languages except for the Dhegihan languages" as "virtually all Siouan languages" but I can also see the argument for it.
  • Evidence shows that — unless there's evidence against that
  • around the Eastern United States — presumably you mean "in" or "approximately in" the Eastern United States, rather than surrounding the Eastern United states
  • prior to the exploration and colonization of the region by Europeans — would be useful to attach a rough time for those not familiar with the history of European exploration and colonization of the Eastern United States
  • relative morphological resemblances — as opposed to absolute morphological resemblances?
  • "strong probability" that the relationship would be accepted — well, was the relationship accepted? Since it doesn't seem to have turned out to be the case, it might be clearer to just write that Rankin found the grammatical evidence for the relationship compelling.
  • noun classes found in both are unusually similar — (1) presumably noun class prefixes. (2) "unusual" is a bit vague. "unusually similar if the languages are unrelated", perhaps, if that's what the source is trying to say?
  • in a similar fashion — redundant with "like the Siouan languages"
  • a similar ablauting to the Siouan languages, including the use of the final nasal vowel to mark the future tense, similar to its use in Lakota — Probably worth explaining how the final nasal vowel displays ablaut?
  • I think this is mostly addressed in the "Ablaut" section. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
The ablaut section doesn't actually mention "nasal vowel", although presumably you are referring to *ĩ. The confusing part about this sentence though is that it seems to imply that there is only one final nasal vowel, which is ablauting. This doesn't seem to be the intended message. Kisseran (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • If the relationship is phylogenetic — presumably you mean something like "If the languages are related"?
  • Cherokee — was Cherokee not identified as an Iroquoian language at the time? This seems reasonable but could be explained in a footnote or something
  • I was curious about this myself. After a little digging, I accidented back into Chafe (1976), who writes that for "anyone reasonably familiar with Cherokee and one of the other [Iroquoian] languages" the relationship between them would be somewhat obvious. He writes that the first identification of a connection appears to be in 1797, but it's not clear when exactly that relationship became widely accepted scientifically. From my reading (feel free to double check me at the bottom of page 27 here), it sounds like Gatschet and (especially) Hale were still working on proving the relationship in a more scientific fashion around the early-to-mid 1880s. Not sure how to integrate this information into the article without running into an OR issue, but I'm open to ideas. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, all fair enough. What Chafe 1976 writes does seem difficult to untangle. Looking at the cited source by Kasak, I can't really complain about the way you've worded the sentence. Without having looked at the original 19th century sources, I would speculate that they were talking about Iroquoian in a more limited sense of "languages of the Iroquois Confederacy". If you've kept in contact with Kasak, it might be worth asking him about it, but that's more to satisfy my personal curiosity than anything. I agree that there isn't much to be done here with regard to the FA criteria. Kisseran (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comparative Siouan Dictionary should be cited with access dates, since it is online and still open to corrections. Also worth mentioning (not in the article, just as a consideration for the naming convention) that it calls the top-level family Siouan-Catawban, contra Glottolog.
  • Added the date I got my offline copy, if that works. And yeah, it's incredibly frustrating how fluid it all is, but having run through the sources again, the real heavy hitters of the field (to wit, Bob Rankin) almost always use Siouan except to differentiate. I would probably support a move for the main page to Siouan–Catawban. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • At the moment, the navbox is inconsistent with the terminology used in the article and Glottolog, but is consistent with the CSD. Either way, it seems like adopting either one scheme would be better than the current situation.
  • I agree. There was an editor who went around changing everything to Siouan–Catawban and I thought he was being somewhat rash, but I have to admit I'm on his team now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • It seems like categories for extinct languages should only include languages without living descendants, although perhaps there's consensus out there I'm missing. There doesn't seem to be much consistency either way.
  • Categories are their own world on this website. If someone says change them, I'll change them, but otherwise I mostly just leave them alone. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Headings shouldn't have lang templates per MOS:LANG.

That's pretty much all I have to say about the article. Overall, I am somewhat concerned about the text-source integrity of the article, having uncovered several issues when I struggled to understand certain sentences. If this were on a topic I had less expertise in, I might be tempted to oppose, but I think after such a thorough review in a discipline I'm generally familiar with, I don't expect more such issues to remain in the article. As I said at the start of the review, most of these comments are indeed nitpicks, and the gargantuan size of the review is not proportionate to the relatively small distance of the article from meeting all FA criteria. Kisseran (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ohiorivermap.png needs alt text
  • File:Horatio_Hale_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Done and done. Image was published in 1897 so author death shouldn't be needed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks