Jump to content

Talk:Cangin languages

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

Wow. (Not waaw.) This is talking about an ethnic group or groups, and also in terms of languages: Serer(-Sine) and a set of Cangin tongues that are quite separate. See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90737 . It looks like this article needs to be split between one for the ethnicity and one for the language situation. The latter could spit beteween Serer proper (if one may call Sine that) and the other related Cangin tongues. Just a quick take. --A12n 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added an expert attention needed note to the main article.--A12n 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some info merged to Serer people, greetings merged to Serer language (was located at Seereer-Siin), the rest of the article moved here to Cangin languages. (Wow. This has been sitting here for a while.) kwami (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox : Fula-Cangin?

[edit]

Regarding "Fula-Cangin" in the infobox, I can't find anything on the web or the cangin books I have that used such a phrase. Fula-Serer or Serer-Fula I have seen but nothing on Fula-Cangin. So I am wondering where is this phrase (Fula-Cangin) coming from. Are there any reliable sources that used such a phrase? Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the classification of Serere (2010). — kwami (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it this video by any chance?[1]Tamsier (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're discussing it in that video, yes. — kwami (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will listen to it thanks. Has this man authored any books where he used the phrase "Fula-Cangin" which has also been peer-reviewed and the same phrase used in order scholarly works by other scholars? Or is the phrase only used in this video and perhaps does not appear anywhere else and not in script? I ask because I've looked in the Serer and Cangin books I have as well as on the internet but can't find the phrase in any scholarly work.Tamsier (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember if the phrase actually occurs or if it's just the Fula-Cangin branch. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem I will listen to the video. You say "Fula-Cangin branch". Is there such a branch? Would you kindly post a link where a scholarly work used the phrase Fula-Cangin branch? I have seen Fula-Serer and Serer-Fula but can't find anything on Fula-Cangin. Even the corresponding articles in other languages do not use Fula-Cangin, but that is irrelevant, may be the other language editors missed that part, and as long as the phrase is in scholarly works I see no problem. Are there any scholarly works where such a phrase has been used?Tamsier (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't recall if the exact phrase actually occurs, or if they just describe a Fula + Cangin branch. — kwami (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no probs. Listened to 50 mins of the video but so far heard nothing anyway. If there are no reliable sources that supports "Fula-Cangin", I think that line should be removed, in order to prevent it from being OR. It also brings it in line with other corresponding articles to which there are sources. What do you think?Tamsier (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The clade is not OR. It was proposed by Segerer in the only recent classification of Atlantic languages. It turns out to be the same as the languages which have implosive consonants. I've also seen it called Fula–Tenda, but that might be read as leaving out Cangin. Would that be a preferable name? Is there something else you would want to call it? The point is that these languages are closer to Fula–Serer than they are to, say, Wolof. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami, thanks for the feedback. Regarding Mr Segerer's proposal, at the moment there are no other reliable or notable sources that supports the phrase "Fula-Cangin", nothing I can find anyway. May be it is too soon. Also, in the video link, I didn't hear Mr Segerer or the other guy who took over use such a phrase either. Perhaps we should give it time until this phrase is picked up by other notable and reliable sources before considering its inclusion if it merits it. At present, I think the phrase "Fula-Cangin" should be removed from the clad and just leave Cangin right underneath Senegambian languages. This would make sense and support the sources. That is just my opinion. I appreciate this may also impact on the lovely and pains taking diagram designed on Senegambian languages etc, but I am sure those can be fixed.Tamsier (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "fixed". They are correct. They are what Segerer proposes, and the only other classification is from 1971 and quite dated. It would be nice if we had multiple treatments, but we don't, and Segerer is a RS. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found something. I don't know how much help this is. In scholarly works it is stated as "Proto-Cangin". There are some links and books on Proto-Cangin but nothing on Fula-Cangin. According to this book « Systèmes de marques personnelles en Afrique » (published 2004), a book which Segerer co-authored with Ibriszimow, they also used Proto-Cangin. Here are some snippits of the book, it is in French.[2].Tamsier (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that only deals with Cangin, unless they mention external connections? But Atlantic, Senegambian, Fula, Serer don't pull up anything. Wolof does, but I can't get access to what it actually says. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, the diagram can be easily changed, if you find that another name is established. But we need some name, since we refer to that clade in the text. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, Wolof and some other Senegambian languages are in it. But just like you, I am only reading from snippits. I don't have the book. Typed Fula-Cangin but nothing come up, but at least 15 pages come up for Pro-Cangin. This is what I have also seen in other sources. I've just found this link in addresses the Fulfulde (based on Wilson 1989). In it, Fulfulde is one of the branches of the Senegambian languages (like Serer and Wolof) but Cangin does not appear to be. The book is mainly about Nigeria anyway. Here is the link, see what you make off it.[3] (Heusing, Gerald, "Aspects of the Morphology-Syntax Interface in Four Nigerian Languages: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Fulfulde, Igbo, Lamang and Mupun" (1999). Tamsier (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are errors in Wilson (1989). He misread the Sapir data he copied his classification from, and so had Serer as closer to Wolof than to Fula. That was explicitly corrected by Segerer. Anyway, lots of sources not mentioning Cangin doesn't tell us anything except that lots of people don't bother with Cangin, or that Segerer differs rather substantially from Sapir (though foreshadowed by plenty of others who had problems with Sapir's classification). Segerer (2010) is the only classification of Atlantic languages in the last 40 years, since Sapir (1971). — kwami (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No lots of sources do mention Cangin, it is "Fula-Cangin" as entered in the clade, that there are no sources for. Has Segerer published any varifiable books where he mentioned Fula-Cangin per the clade? The video link cited does not appear to mention Fula-Cangin.Tamsier (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His website is here. He posted the slideshow from the talk, which shows the Fula–Cangin clade, and notes that these are the languages with implosives, a typological correlation to his classification. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to his website. Well I have gone through the Power-Point presentation of his talk in 2010 (see : Talks, "Workshop Language Isolates in Africa (Lyon, December 3-4, 2010)[4]. After downloading the file, I went through it slide by slide, but can't find anywhere where he mentioned "Fula-Cangin". He did mention impolsive as most sources do anyway, but no Fula-Cangin. Unless there is another 2010 talk that he has not posted on his web, or I missed it by accident, I can't find anything on this 2010 talk (neither the script, nor the video link cited here and elsewhere) where he mentioned Fula-Cangin. For the past couple of days I have been going round in circle trying to find sources for the "Fula-Cangin" entry made on the clade. I can't find it in spite of following the sources cited. With respect, the burden of prove rests with the editor who put them in. They should either provide verifiable sources (the source cited does not mention it) or remove it.Tamsier (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The slide where it says 'implosive stops'. That's the Fula–Cangin clade. — kwami (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slide 21 (see link above) - titled : "Further arguments for the new classication", does not mention "Fula-Cangin". None of the corresponding articles (e.g. Wikipedia French, etc.) mentioned Fula-Cangin. There is no verifiable sources where Fula-Cangin is mentioned. The closes I have seen is "Proto-Cangin" or just Senegambian languages, full stop, even in Segerer and Ibriszimowsee (see link above). There is nothing in scholarly works that mentioned this "Fula-Cangin", even in the sources cited to support that entry here and elsewhere. So there is a problem. I think this may one of those instances where a third opinion is required or additional experts on the subject.Tamsier (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Slide 21. Right in the middle. See the arrow? Indicates implosive stops for the Fula–Cangin clade. See? The clade includes Fula–Serer, Tenda, and Cangin. Now, I've also heard it called "Fula–Tenda", so if you prefer that name, we could use that instead. Though, since Cangin is the most divergent branch, someone might think that Fula–Tenda excludes Cangin, but it's not a big deal if you really have a problem with "Fula–Cangin" for some reason. Or a third name, if you have one. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per the sources, I have seen "Proto-Cagin". Unless you have any objections, I prefer to use that for the purposes of verifiability.Tamsier (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that has nothing to do with this. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami, if you have problems with "Proto-Cangin" for some reason, we can just leave it as Cangin right underneath Senegambian languages and remove "Fula-Cangin". This brings it inline with other articles, unless you have objection to that. Tamsier (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with Proto-Cangin is that it is wrong.
Fula–Cangin is right. It's ref'd. The node shows what Cangin's closest relatives are, which is the whole point of having a classification in the first place. I don't understand your objection. If it's just a matter of wording, then we can change the wording, but there's no need to delete facts. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is there is no where were Fula-Cangin is mentioned. There is no such thing called Fula-Cangin per the reliable sources, not even the source cited. As such, it doesn't exist or at the very least, its notability is questionable. I don't know why one must continue to push this Fula-Cangin when there is nothing regarding this. You say its referenced, but the ref cited does not support Fula-Cangin. It is purely WP:SYN / WP:OR. I don't know why you refuse to remove the Fula-Cangin which will somewhat bring it in line with other corresponding articles e.g. the French, German etc. Anyway I am tired of arguing the same point over and over again. You are the administrator on English Wiki. I am not. Do as you please. The way things are done in English Wiki. Best regards.Tamsier (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you could say that, when you pointed out the exact slide it is presented in. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cangin 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cangin_languages&oldid=1200598005"