This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
I suggest to change the name of this page to ″Awetí language″ (with an acute accent, not "Awetï" with a diaeresis on the "i") -- as the article states, the name of the language is often rendered as "Aweti", identical to the name of the group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aweti). This is also the name used in much of the literature on the group and the language, in particular in Portuguese (see for instance [1], [2]).
In English, however, more often the form "Awetí" is used, in order to guide the pronunciation which should stress the final syllable (this is done automatically in Portuguese). This is the usage in Glottolog: [3] and most sources cited there.
If nobody objects, I will go ahead in a couple of days and do this change.
SeDru (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two 'variants' listed in the first line of the text have no diacriticals. They are identical and without explanation or correction it looks ridiculous.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
