Talk:Mayan languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: WikiProject Mesoamerica Open Tasklist: a shortlist of things you can do to help out. Queries welcomed here. (Project Main • Activities • Catalogue • Guidelines • Strategy• Tools and refs) edit | watch | purge NEWS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: → Mesoamerica, Olmec, Palenque are WP:MESO collaboration targets of the moment. → Compilation of links to primary sources commenced at References. → Recently promoted to GA status: Yuri Knorosov, Nahuatl language, Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg. PROJECT ACTIVITIES: Meta-tasks and subprojects: • add project banner to articles • document Strategy • assign article ratings per the assessment scheme • add to Project references • collate images and maps • More... Categorisation: • develop full Category scheme • reorganise Cat:Mesoamerica contents • More category tasks... Templates: • {{Mesoamerica site infobox}} (create) • {{Mesoamerica ruler infobox}} (create) • {{Maya}} (improve) • {{WP Mesoamerica}} project banner (populate) • More... ARTICLE TO-DO: Requested articles: • History of Mesoamerica • Chenes (Maya subregion & architectural style) • 260-day Mesoamerican calendar • Emblem glyph • Hermann Beyer • David Stuart • Mirador Basin • More... Expand from stub: • Calendar round • Chiapas highlands • Chilam Balam • Chol language • Trecena • Veintena • More... Cleanup/attention needed: • Domesticated plants of Mesoamerica • Gender roles in Mesoamerica • History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) • Maya women • Obsidian use in Mesoamerica • Olmec figurine • More... Improvement drive: Start-Class • Mesoamerican calendars • Mesoamerican chronology • Mesoamerican languages • Mesoamerican writing systems • Mixtec • Monte Albán • Toltec • Yucatán Peninsula • More... Improvement drive: B-Class • Chichen Itza • La Venta • Maya calendar • Maya civilization • Maya script • Olmec • Quetzalcoatl • More... Prepare for Quality reviews (GA, PR, FAC): • Mesoamerica • Spanish conquest of Mexico • Palenque (see talk pg) • More...

Contents 1 Mayance languages 2 Ladino?!?! 3 Removal of fringe material 4 mayan tribes and languages 5 Tzotzil 6 Cordomex 7 ALMG 8 Requested Move for various Mayan language articles 8.1 Proposal specifics 8.2 Survey 8.3 Discussion 9 Bloodletting 10 adding images and restructuring 11 Proto-mayan area?

[edit] Mayance languages

I only get about 500 hits on google for "mayance maya", and one of the first two hits is wikipedia. Is this actually a significant enough term that it deserves to be bolded, with a two-sentence explanation?

Rather than saying "belief that it bears...", it seems to me that it would be simpler to say simply something like "The Maya of today are the direct descendants of the Classic Maya."

[edit] Ladino?!?!

Somebody please figure out what the reference to Ladino is doing in this article. Cbdorsett 20:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here it meant people of Hispanic culture. I changed it to be less ambiguous, but the Ladino and Ladinos articles need to be more clear on this and other alternative meanings for the term. -- Infrogmation 05:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infrogmation, I'm quite sure you are confusing the two terms Ladino and Latino. — Hippietrail 14:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I've both heard and read "Ladino" with the above meaning, I don't believe so. Either way, the possibly confusing term is now out of this article. -- Infrogmation 18:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This issue is being dealt with. The Judæo-Spanish/Ladino article is now at Ladino language. Ladino is being changed to a disambig page (Ladino (disambiguation)) as I write this. Tomer ^TALK 06:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't "ladino" mean "astute"? Were the indigenous people who adopted the Spanish language and modern dress considered astute? David Brown CSULB dabro@csulb.edu Apr. 10, 2005

(1)Yes (2)No. This is why there is a disambig page at Ladino (disambiguation). Tomer ^TALK 20:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have edited Ladino people to answer that question.

i have heard of people called ladinos, in central america. from what i can tell, they aren't connected to the ladino language spoken by sephardic jews. Gringo300 12:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ladino is the expression used especially in Guatemala to refer to the europeanized peopulation called "Mestizo" in Mexico.Maunus 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of fringe material

I removed the reference to "Mayance languages". See comment above. Also see:

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exbevmay.html

"There are various devices that have been used by scholars to disambiguate the term. One such attempt, which failed, was to introduce the term "Mayance" for the family, keeping "Maya" for the language. The current accepted terminology is to call the language "Yucatec" or "Yucatec Maya," saving "Maya" for the family."

I also removed the claim about an "African substratum". See discussion in Talk:Maya hieroglyphics.

Benwing 05:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mayan tribes and languages

i've recently begun doing research on the mayan tribes and languages. i'm much more familiar with the ancient maya. Gringo300 12:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. well isn't that nice. Anything else? Tomer ^TALK 12:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tzotzil

Shouldn't the pronunciation begin with [ts]? I'm assuming [s] is a typo? -- MikeGasser (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cordomex

This resource really should be mentioned---there isn't much reference on the web about this dictionary—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.186.65 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006.

By all means, if you have the information, feel free to add something about it.--cjllw | TALK 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALMG

Here in Guatemala the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala is considered the authority on Mayan languages and has updated the orthography. Even in Mexico they get some respect (in my experience in the Tzotzil area) and I expect that in Belize and Honduras too (given relative sizes of the populations involved and that there are no Mayan languages there that aren't also indigenous to Guatemala. I'd suggest it would be good to move all relevant pages to reflect the new orthography, keeping of course the old (Spanish) version redirects. (although I personally find the doubled vowels silly, but that's probably because the two languages I've touched don't have them) Here's my revision of the list:

• • Chol language [ʧʼol]
  • Chorti language
  • Chontal language
  • Tzeltal language [ʦʼeltal]
  • Tzotzil language [soʦʼil]
• Huastecan languages
  • Huastec language [waːʃteːka] Not guatemalan, I would leave this one intact though the ALMG version would be wastek
  • Chicomuceltec language Ditto.
• Kanjobalan-Chujean languages
  • Chuj language [ʧuːx] no change
  • Tojolabal language no change
  • Jacaltec language Jakalteko
  • Kanjobal language [qʼanhoɓ#700;al] Q'anjob'al, note extra apostrophe in IPA
  • Mocho language Never heard of it
  • Akateko language no change
• Quichean-Mamean languages no change
  • Mam language [maːm]no change
  • Tektiteko language no change
  • Ixil language no change
  • Awakateko language no change
  • Kekchi language [qʼeqʧiʔ] Q'eqchi'
  • Pocomam language [poqomam] poqomam'
  • Poqomchi’ language no change
  • Quichean languages
    • Quiché language [kʼiːʧeːʔ] K'iche'
    • Cakchiquel language [kaqʧikel] Kaqchikel
    • Tz'utujil language no change
    • Quiche-Achi languages
    • Sikapense language An actual typo, its Sipakapense. No redirect, just move
    • Sakapulteko language no change
    • Uspanteko language no change
• Yucatecan languages
  • Itza language Itza'
  • Lacandon language Mexican, no change
  • Mopan language no change
  • Yucatec Maya language [joʔkateːka] Yukateko, even though it's Mexican they respect ALMG.
• Mayan Sign Languages
  • Yucatec Maya Sign Language no change

I think the new spellings should be mentioned, but generally as far as I have udnerstood it is Wikipedia policy to use American English spellings, not native spellings, but the spelling that allow english speakers to most easily find a topic. Native names and spellings are generally provided in the article lead but not as the name of the article, e.g. the article is French language not "langue francaise"Maunus 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted. But the American English basically follows the Spanish (or else why the gendered endings and the accent in Quiché, basically only the capitalization and the few non-gendered ones like Yucatec are particularly English). And the Spanish is clearly changing. Moreover, the forms currently used on this page are a mishmash, all the K's make it clear we're not using old style Spanish but then The adjectives Quichean and the like are clearly established in English, you don't change them, but I'd say the English trend is clearly to accept local changes into English. Certainly, we should at least have a coherent policy, for example, either include the glottalization as in Tz'utujil or not as in Kekchi. And a coherent policy is taking sides, you either follow individual-expert-X or you use the latest consensus spelling.

Let's see if anyone else has an opinion.--Homunq 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just found ISO_639 which actually DOES have a standard English for all of these, the problem is I highly doubt (based on the internal inconsistencies mentioned above) that the current list uses the correct names down the line, and I see no easy way to do the search (given, for instance, that Cakchiquel comes out with 7 dialects, whereas even in the Rosetta project it only has 5.) So, I support using the correct ISO 639 English naming, but mentioning the ALMG as the preferred native spelling. Does anyone know how to search the 639 codes? --Homunq 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think using the Academia's orthography would be an attractive option, with a number of advantages: it is (mostly) consistent, it was specifically developed for these particular languages, and (importantly) a significant and ever-growing number of contemporary sources in the field of Maya studies use it (and do so deliberately). That is to say, this orthography is increasingly used in the papers, journals and (to a lesser extent) books written on Maya topics which are cited as references for Maya-related articles- at least those from the 1990s onwards. AFAIK the ratified part of ISO 639 is concerned with standardising the language codes, not their names.--cjllw | TALK 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good to see someone who probably knows a lot more than I. What would you suggest for the Mexican languages and for the gendered endings? I think probably the "most English" answer would be to drop the endings, but the other way is probably more searchable; either way we should be consistent. Feel free to add your suggestions for specific languages above in some other formatting than the bold I've used, if it helps.

A note of context for those unfamiliar: these names are not the languages names for themselves. Most refer to themselves as "true language" or "our language" (for instance, Bats'il K'op in both Tzotzil and Tzeltal). If anything, these are the laguages' names for the ethnic groups (when disambiguation is necessary), though many of them have an Aztec (non-mayan) etymology. Should that go (edited) in the article itself?--Homunq 15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary english-language Mayanist sources which have adopted this orthography apply it to Mayan-originated terminology in general, including instances where the language or term "comes from" outside of Guatemala itself; so there should be no issue in extending it for Mexico-based instances such as Yukatek or Wastek, for example. A cautionary note: sources do differ a bit in the extent by which they apply the Academia orthography: some use it for all Mayan terms, while others retain the "old" orthography for certain instances such as 'well-established' place names, language names and ethnonyms. Still others continue to use a Spanish-accented orthography in some cases (probably a reflection that spanish is also a lingua franca among researchers in the field). See also the WP:MESO proposal and discussion for applying consistent orthography here. The proposal is based more on its usage in archaeological/epigraphic contexts, research publications on modern Mayan languages themselves might possibly be a little different, I'm not that sure. Regardless of all this, I'd still think that ALMG orthography is well-suited to the task.

Re whether or how to indicate gendered endings, I agree that the "most english-sounding" would be to drop the endings, but could be pursuaded otherwise if we could come up with some consistent reasoning. And as for the cases where the language names (even under revised ALMG orthography) are exonymic: I would say that yes, it would be great to mention in the article itself the name(s) of the language used by the speakers themselves as well as discussing the etymologies of the various terms, however titling the article that way would be going a step too far. I think it would be better to preserve the concordance between the names of the peoples and their languages, insofar as this is possible.--cjllw | TALK 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what to prefer. I dont think following current wikipedia policies the Academia is the source to follow on an english language encyclopedia, I think that the article should be aimed at an english speaking audience and use the spelling for which they are more likely to search. On the other hand there are no reliable english standard either, not even within academia sso many languages have several names and even more spellings of these and it is a wilderness to try and decide which is more encyclopedic. I personally strongly dislike the gendered endings in an english context and feel that they will limit searchability quite a lot. Something I would like to see however would be a page on the academia and on reccomended orthographies in general and to have a link to this page on each of the separate language pages. Maunus 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO we should not have too much of an issue in using ALMG orthography in an english language encyclopaedia, since it is adopted by a sizeable number of english language publications and works in the field. A general reader who has come across one of these contemporary sources would or should recognise the spelling (though equally I suppose a reader familiar with other or general sources will recognise different or former spellings). I can't really think of a way to establish with any confidence which spelling would be "most recognisable" to the general reader, particularly since it may be supposed that many of these languages are probably little-known outside of specialist areas.

Agree that it would be fruitless to attempt to determine which orthography is the most encyclopaedic, and that even within academic publications there are differences. Also, I'm more familiar with archaeological and epigraphic sources than modern linguistic ones- Maunus, are you or anyone else able to confirm whether modern Mayan languages research also has a general observance nowadays for ALMG conventions?

Even so, the ALMG system is a (or the) recognised authority here, and it at least does give reasonably comprehensive guidance on language representation. If our articles were to follow a system such as this, it will be less jarring to read than the current mix of othographical conventions within and between articles. There's also the danger that a reader could become confused as to whether similar spellings refer to the same entity, or really are referring to different ones. Of course, each article needs to give the explanation and list of orthographic alternatives.

In any case we'll have a number of redirects for each pointing to whichever spelling convention is chosen, so readers searching on any particular variation should hopefully end up at the desired target.

I think your idea on a general article covering orthographic standards, developments and concordance for Mayan languages is a good one.--cjllw | TALK 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodletting

I have no idea how to edit the template that causes the box on the right, but I feel strongly that a link to the (classic) Mayan religious practice of bloodletting does not belong on a page about the (modern) Mayan languages. --Homunq 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That template is more about covering the main topical areas relating to pre-Columbian Maya, so perhaps it could be removed from here altogether. However, I don't myself see the template as being out-of-place here, and note also that it is still very much under development & can and should be revised and expanded. I do agree that in terms of comparative levels of subject matter bloodletting does look out-of-place in that list, which should really be a collection of higher-level topic areas. I'll revise the template with something a little more general and widely-applicable.--cjllw | TALK 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont even see why bloodletting is encyclopedic enough to have its own article. Let alone be shown as a "general maya related article"". Sounds like you are going to do something reasonable about it.Maunus 08:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adding images and restructuring

I added two images: a tree diagram of the mayan language family and a map of their distribution. I pulled out the list of Mayan languages and I will instead make a list at the end of the article with links to the respective Ethnologue ISO-codes and wikilinks to their articles.

This is the material I removed:

• Cholan-Tzeltalan languages
  • Chol language [ʧʼol]
  • Ch'orti' language
  • Chontal language
  • Tzeltal language [ʦʼeltal]
  • Tzotzil language [soʦʼil]
• Huastecan languages
  • wastec language [waːʃteːka]
  • Chicomuceltec language
• Kanjobalan-Chujean languages
  • Chuj language [ʧuːx]
  • Tojolab'al language
  • Jakaltek language
  • Q'anjob'al language [qʼanhoɓal]
  • Mocho' language (also called Mototzintleco)
  • Akatek language
• Quichean-Mamean languages
  • Mam language [maːm]
  • Tektitek language
  • Ixil language
  • Awakatek language
  • Q'eqchi language [qʼeqʧiʔ]
  • Poqomam language [poqomam]
  • Poqomchi’ language
  • Quichean languages
    • K'iche' language [kʼiːʧeːʔ]
    • Kaqchikel language [kaqʧikel]
    • Tz'utujil language
    • Quiche-Achi languages
    • Sipakapense language
    • Sakapultek language
    • Uspantek language
• Yucatecan languages
  • Itza' language
  • Lacandon language
  • Mopan language
  • Yukatek language [joʔkateːka]
• Mayan Sign Languages
  • Yucatec Maya Sign Language

Maunus 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'Maunus 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)ve inserted the material again in the form of an infobox of the mayan language family.

The Chuj branch is missing from your infobox. Also I notice that Jakaltek dropped out in your tree diagram, which is probably justifiable linguistically (very close to Q'anjob'al) but contrary to ALMG - I'd support you but it's worth mention. Finally, I like your linguistic features edit, it is clearly less idiosyncratic than my own initial attempt, but I think that a few of the things which you cut (effects on Guatemalan Spanish, Lenkersdorf's Sapir-Worfean thesis about Tojolabal, and to a much lesser extent the Lakoff reference), while not necessarily of strictly linguistic interest, are of interest to a general encyclopedic user. Would you object to my putting them back in, conforming of course to your improved format? --Homunq 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, go ahead. It was a table syntax error that made the Chujean-Qanjobalan branch fail to show. Poptí is another name for Jakaltek, which is used by Nora C England upon whose book I have based the diagram (and she is a big supporter of ALMG). The lakoff stuff I don't really find relevant because 1. his book is not about the maya and he is not a specialist in mayan languages, and other scientist deal much better with the spatial description stuff in mayan languages (there is a lot of literature references about this in the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area article.) and also to me it is not as much the embodiment part that is interesting but the way in which Mayan languages (and mesoamerican languages in general) use them grammatically: this is the part about relational nouns derived from bodyparts. The lenkersdorf experiment stuff I didn't understand the way it was described, but seemed like a very simple way to connect ergative grammar to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. I think if it should go any where it should be in the article Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the experimental support part. The effects on Guatemalan spanish I also don't think are documented the very same features are common in rural central mexican spanish and while some linguits argue that here it is due to influence from Nahuatl (which has the sdsame constructin as Maya) it is not really possible to unequivacally attribute it to substrate influence (the same constructions are found in European spanish dialects) If you do chose to put it back in though I will not object, although I may reword it. Maunus 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lakoff: OK, just add a bullet for semantic calques. Influence on Spanish: I have definitely heard this construction more in Guatemala and Chiapas than in Milpas Altas, DF (though the latter was only the outer orbit for me when I was in the DF); I think this should go somewhere but will defer to you on whether here or MLA. Lenkersdorf: I was trying to simplify a whole book of argumentation into a quick paragraph, of course it comes across as simple. How about I put it in Sapir-Worf with here "(This feature has been used to advance the Sapir-Worf hypothesis in relation to the Tojolabal language.)" Honestly, Lenkersdorf's thesis doesn't really rise to the level of experimental support - he has deep experience and several arguments but all of them are just suggestive, not conclusive.--Homunq 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.Maunus 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-mayan area?

Was there ever really a single language spoken from Yucatan to Pacific? Seems more likely that it started from a smaller area and spread (as it simultaneously lost unity) through conquest, association with effective cultural practices, and/or religion/literature. What do linguists think, this issue is obviously true for a lotta "proto" languages? Meanwhile, I'm adding "...the ancestor of languages now...", though I worry I'm bordering on original research. --Homunq 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not really true. The Protomayan homeland is thought to have been in the the northern highlands or southern lowlands of Guatemala, (around the rio pasion and usumacinta) this is where the greatest linbnguistic diversity is today and sos looks to bee the center of expansion. Look at the article on the Huastecs - which is well referenced and has this nice map: , maybe we should include it.

Maunus 08:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Great map, I stuck it in but I had to move the other boxes around not to clutter things up, see if you like the result. --Homunq 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)