Talk:Algonquian languages/Loanwords

Page moved from Category talk:Algonquian loanwords after category deletion

What to categorize here

here is how i've chosen to categorize articles: i find the entry for the original object given the algonquian-derived name. since some words -- say, Mississippi or Moccasin -- may have since been applied to a myriad of other "spin-off" words, this keeps us from getting too cluttered. on the same note, i decided to only categorize disambig pages if the original loan word isn't used as the article's title (as with Caribou or Woodchuck). so: add away, and if anything comes up, feel free to discuss it here! - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 05:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, i've also categorized entries with the algonquian-derived word first, eg, Siberian Husky (note: as mentioned above, the first dog breed to have the Husky name) is categorized as [[Category:Algonquian loanwords|Husky, Siberian]], as is Lake Michigan ([[Category:Algonquian loanwords|Michigan, Lake]]). - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 06:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe -- so, evidently, ixnay on the isambigday agespay! find the closest english word to the source.... - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 03:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the numerous removals of the tribal names. Of course they're English names; what other language would they be? Nearly all, as spelled in Latinized form, are strongly corrupted from their original pronunciations and are not actual words in that language. "Rappahannock" or "Shinnecock" are as English words as the words "Munich" or "Moscow." Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, don't mean to step on toes. i see your point. i guess it would include all tribes and individuals of algonquian extraction, then? but then, "Algonquian" would be an algonquian loanword? should "French" or "France" be considered a french loanword in english? hmmm. should we ask for other, potentially interested parties to weigh in? - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 06:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Algonquian" is a loanword, coming from "Algonquin"; however, the Algonquin is an exonym as their endonym is omàmiwininiwak and it was the Maliseet that called them elakómkwik. We do have another problem. Some pages are disambiguation pages that are not marked as such and others are. Having the disambiguation pages marked would be the most efficient way to categorize without redundancy, but it seems to be against Wikipedia's policy. Reading the policy, it sounds like we still can categorize disambiguation pages, but as they're not articles, the practice is discouraged. See the parallel discussion thread at my talk page. CJLippert (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this the a way to categorize articles and allows the Wikipedia visitors/users to make broad leaps between articles (beyond the regular article links). So, I'd say, include all. However, I would advise similar categories for Siouan languages, etc., and have all those categories be a subcategory of Loanwords from indigenous languages of the Americas. Similar broad categories can be made with other continents' indigenous languages (such as with Ainu place names that were incorporated into Japanese (for Asia), Maori words found in everyday New Zealand English (for Oceania), etc.) CJLippert (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine solution might be to split this cat: one for toponyms and ethnonyms (or one category for each), and one for non-proper nouns. Badagnani (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that'd be perfect, imo! i was grasping for a way to make some useful distinctions here, and your idea strikes me as just about right. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Ojibwa, Wisconsin, Chippawa, Ontario, Chippewa River, Minnesota would be the toponyms while Ojibwa, Chippewa would be ethnonyms? Sounds fine at the surface, but this would also cause a whole lot of redundancy unless we are will to just include everything into one of these two categories, plus a third for words that are not toponyms or ethnonyms. CJLippert (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx for all the recats, CJ! i'm bushed. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 03:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

My God, I've added all the toponyms I could, and still there appear to be probably hundreds more, if we include the ones in the Cree, Micmac, Ojibwe, Potowotami, Sac & Fox, New England, and Virginia regions. Hope you all can help. We can take pride in the fact that we will probably have the most complete list of such (via these categories) anywhere. Badagnani (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redundancy regarding toponyms is fine, as it's not easy to tell which version of the many toponyms based on Menominee/Menomonie etc. to exclude. So the cat will be a few pages long instead of just one or two--no problem. Badagnani (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify by saying that I'd include toponyms such as Massachusetts and Massachusetts Bay, but not things like Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Badagnani (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by that logic, Anna Mae Aquash would not be included, though her ancester named by Aquash would be included, or her name Naguset Eask (most likely a redirect) would be included. However, if we were to include Anna Mae Aquash, by parallel Massachusetts Institute of Technology would also be included. CJLippert (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. However, some Native Americans with compound names (i.e., Anglo given names, which were not held by Native Americans in the past) have Algonquian surnames for which we have no article, and Anglo given names (or vice versa). I'm not sure those should be excluded, if those surnames are verifiably Algonquian in etymological origin. Badagnani (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, include last name for the most inclusiveness? If so, for consistency, articles like Massachusetts Institute of Technology should be classed in the [[Algonquian loanwords]] umbrella as well. But with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mackinac Bridge, Bungee language, Quonset hut, Aroostook War, etc., these class are quite different from the main umbrella category or its three sub-categories. Do we need one additional one to cover this class of words... and what should that fourth sub-category be called? CJLippert (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. There are also the dozens of "pseudo-somewhat Algonquian" county names in Michigan. Badagnani (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with Quonset hut in the main category, even though there's an English word mixed in. Regarding the language names and the names of wars, etc., you're right, we don't seem to have cats other than the main one that those would fit into neatly. Finally, there are historical Algonquian personages who are known by the English translations of their names (Blue Jacket would be one). For the latter, I'd advocate putting the personal names cat in the redirect from the romanization of the original Algonquian name. Badagnani (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Excellent category. Badagnani (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make a note that at this moment (in making the note) that we have...

Algonquian loanwords (75) - words and titles
- Algonquian ethnonyms (96) - ethnic groups, Tribal and First Nation entities
- Algonquian personal names (83) - human and non-human names
- Algonquian toponyms (953) - waterbodies, landbodies, land-corporate entities and landmarks

for a total of 1207 articles have been categorized. I expect another 5 or so ethnonyms, another 25 personal names and possibly another 50 toponyms. CJLippert (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we include military vessels/equipment, we have a potential to include up to another 150 names. Also, if the red-links are of any indications, especially for Canada-related topics, there may be yet another 600 toponyms there and another 150 toponyms for the United States. If all the various people with Algonquian names were added in (whose links are currently all red-links), that would be potentially another 100 people. Then there are the schools, which like the military vessels/equipment, have not really been touched, but if we include those institutions, there is a possibility of yet another 400 names (all named after their communities, local heros or a nearby land feature). And then, there is an entirely separate area we haven't yet addressed, which are English personal names and toponyms, which are literal translations of the Algonquian personal names and toponyms (such as Little Turtle and Snake River. CJLippert (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no linguistics expert, but I think that this category is being, perhaps, a little overzealously populated. I see words like raccoon, moose, muskrat, etc. that by the category name seem proper. But there are lots of things that are not loanwords at all. For example, I don't think articles about specific ships should be in this category. Even though moccasin is a loanword, it's quite a long stretch, in my opinion, to say that USS Moccasin is a loanword. (If anything, its a namesake for a loanword.) If all of the current articles included are deemed necessary, I think it would probably be better called something like Category:Things named with Algonquian words rather than its present title. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting no response after a few days, I have removed all of the naval ships and ship classes that were in the category. This category, however, still seems to need quite a bit of pruning to get it to correspond to its actual title, an action I will leave to others. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]