Jump to content

Talk:West Atlantic languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The statement that Segerer (2010) is the only classification since Sapir is not correct. There is a classification in Holst's 2008 book, pp. 84 - 86. (While Segerer places Bijago together with the Bak languages, Holst puts forward evidence that it belongs to the Southern branch.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.100.172.24 (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I was using preview extensively while working that up; I must have saved without noticing. Thanks for the compliment (and thanks for that welcome message a while back; I'm still getting used to Wikipedia, talk pages, etc.); obviously I've still got some stuff to flesh out. The consonant mutation and noun class sections need serious expansion/clean-up, but I'm dead tired right now.

Some issues I've been thinking about:

  • The family tree takes up a lot of space, and it's not that big or complicated a family. Ideally, it would fit on one screen and the top level 3-way split would be visible.
  • Names - I tended to go with Ethnologue's names where they differed from (Wilson 1989), but I'm certainly not committed to them. Between consonant mutation and the Anglo/Francophone divide, these languages seem particularly prone to having loads of alternate names. We'll probably need a lot of redirect pages.
  • Language vs. people - For better-known languages, Wikipedia usually has separate articles for the ethnic group and the language. I'm not sure that's necessarily appropriate for some of these languages; do we really need distinct Bainouk-Samik and Bainouk-Samik language articles? (Moreover, there may not always be a one-to-one mapping between cultures/peoples/ethnic groups and languages. Actually, further investigation suggests that may be the case here: according to Serer, speakers of the Cangin languages are part of the Serer ethnic group, while their languages are (apparently) more distantly related to the Serer-Sine language than Wolof is.) What's the best consistant way to handle this?
  • For example, it shouldn't be too hard for me to put together a stubby article on the Temne, but it seems premature to make seperate language and people stubs. A single page covering the people and their language(s) seems like it would be more useful to readers until such time as we've got enough material for two. In this situation, which would be more sensible:
    • Changing the links on this page from Temne language to [[Temne|Temne language]] until such time as we split the language and culture information.
    • Leaving the links here alone and creating Temne language as a redirect to Temne. This is probably a bad/insane idea, but there's a certain consistancy about it. I like the idea that if you want to like to language X (say, in passing in a theoretical linguistics article), you just link to "X language" without worrying about whether there's a seperate language article or not. Plus, if the X language were ever split off, all such links would still work.

I'd like to figure out how to approach these issues sensibly, as other branches of N-C (and other families too) are in similar need of expansion and organization. (I'm kind of warming up to work on Kwa, which I know a little more about; Kwa is a bit larger, and Stewart's family tree for Kwa has more levels. There are lots of similar problems (e.g., various linguistic and ethnic meanings of 'Akan'), so I'm hoping to get clear on how to handle them.)

Finally, I renamed this page as (1) recent work seems to have settled on "Atlantic" over "West Atlantic" and (2) I don't think I've ever seen "Westatlantic" as one word anywhere else. (That doesn't mean no one uses it, but obviously it isn't the main term. Plus, I made a redirect page for "West Atlantic languages". Hope I didn't screw anything up. --Chris Johnson 01:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoah, that's a lot of questions! Let me try to answer some of them.
  • Family tree — I think you're right; it would be good to visualize the 3-way split avoiding the clutter from individual languages. Another thing we could do, apart from your suggestions, is place the full list of languages at (indeed) List of Atlantic languages and refer to there from here; then we could use this article to outline the major subdivisions, and mention some individual languages as examples. Any thoughts on this?
  • Names of individual languages — sticking to Ethnologue's names sounds OK to me, but I think it's important to mention Wilson's designation as well where the two differ.
  • Language vs. people — According to WikiProject Languages, it is advisable to keep articles about languages at X language. It's also the most consistent way, I think, precisely because the occasional lack of a one-to-one mapping between people and language. But if you want to put something together on the Temne and you don't feel like writing much (say more that two paragraphs, which would qualify as a language stub) about Temne language, by all means start at Temne. Wait, that's not exactly what you were asking. Let me see... I'd say: redirect Temne language to Temne only if (1) there is not enough info to start Temne language itself, and only if (2) there is actually something about the language in the article about the people. In other words, only redirect when it makes sense for the user to get redirected. If one sticks to this, it is clear that the links on this page should stay as they are; a link will be blue if there is a reasonable language article ór a redirect to an ethno-article with at least something about the language; and it will be red if Wikipedia doesn't have info on the language at all. Remember that it is not bad to have a red link; red links are incentives to get people writing.
By the way, a relevant guideline may be 'Wikipedia is not paper' — we can afford having an article about the Bainouk-Samik and another one about their language.
  • Finally, renaming it was a good idea.
Keep up the good work! — mark ✎ 20:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

@Greenwhitedino: I have updated the page as discussed. Atlantic is now defined as a proper subgroup , but with narrower scope per Pozdniakov & Segerer and Güldemann. I think we still need to clean up some related pages, and also the template Template:Atlantic languages. I am undecided about what to do with Senegambian languages. It is actually identical to Pozdniakov & Segerer's Atlantic, but hardly anyone calls this "Senegambian". I'd suggest to merge Senegambian languages here. Input from other editors welcome (pinging @Florian Blaschke, @Kwamikagami). –Austronesier (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami and Austronesier: Why moved to West Atlantic languages when Atlantic languages seems to be more common? Srnec (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want to merge a potentially valid classification into an obsolete one. If this article is going to be primarily on current classification, then the obsolete stuff should be relegated to the history section or moved to the Atlantic-Congo or Niger-Congo articles.

Srnec, the problem with "Atlantic" is that it's ambiguous and it's a horrible name. "The Atlantic branch of Atlantic-Congo" is clear enough, but divorced from that context there's little to identify its meaning. For similar reasons, people avoid "Indic languages" (though that's much less ambiguous) and "Chinese languages". Imagine if a local branch of Trans-New Guinea were called "Pacific" or "Pacific Coast", because it included the majority of TNG languages spoken on the Pacific coast of New Guinea, and that was the usual name in RSs. It would be weird for us to have an article on it called "Pacific languages" or "Pacific Coast languages", because out of the TNG context that's not what that phrase means. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: It wasn't me. I think the term "Atlantic languages" has been reclaimed in a meaningful way by Segerer, Lübke, Güldemann and others. –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: it's a horrible name does not seem like a very good reason (at Wikipedia). As far as I can tell, linguists don't avoid the term "Atlantic languages". Srnec (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that has now become the standard (the nomenclature was in flux when I created several of these articles), then yes, we should follow. Is it though? We do need to consider that some sources use the phrase "Atlantic languages" to mean languages of the Atlantic, analogous to "Pacific languages". — kwami (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problèmes de l’étude comparative historique des langues atlantiques

[edit]

This article does not exist, as far as I can tell from [1]the journal's website.

  • Pozdniakov, Konstantin. "Problèmes de l’étude comparative historique des langues atlantiques". Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika, 2007.

I have replaced it with an actual article Pozdniakov wrote for SUGIA. Snowman304|talk 05:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Atlantic_languages&oldid=1195356082"