Talk:Eskimo/Lifting out and hue shade

I would suggest a “lifting out” approach, extended with a hue / shading principle:

${\sqrt {60}}={\sqrt {4\cdot 15}}={\sqrt {4}}\cdot {\sqrt {3}}\cdot {\sqrt {5}}=2\cdot {\sqrt {5}}\cdot {\sqrt {3}}$

or maybe a better analogy:

$ab+ac=a\left(b+c\right)$

I mean, the common things characteristic of all (or most) Eskimo groups should be contained (or at least mentioned) by the “common” Eskimo article (that is the “lifting out”), while specific things can come to the approriate groups or subbranches. I think of the following things:

Factorization

Lifting out

Language

Having incorporative and polysynthetic languages, also using ergative structures (at the same time, these are good distinction features between the two main branches of Eskimo-Aleut language family (Eskimo versus Aleut), because incorporation is less characteristic of Aleut language and it is not an ergative language).

Environment and technology

Living near the Arctic, most groups north of the tree-line in a tree-less environment (only driftwood and bushes); sustinance based more on hunting than on gathering (in contrast to most hunter-gatherer peoples); having to cope with polar night; using a sophisticated and highly adapted technology ).

Although hunting marine mammals and bipartite (seasonal) nomadizing are not characteristic of all groups (e.g. Caribou Eskimos rely on a total inland sustinance) , but the distinction cannot be made across the Yupik versus Inuit polarity (there are both Yupik and Inuit examples). Thus, these descriptions could remain lifted out.

Belief

Although animals are revered and play an important role in the beliefs, but totemism is not known (for Inuits, it is written at more sources; for Yupiks, see a Russian interview with a scientist working with Siberian Yupik: “И. КОВАЛЕВА Тотемные животные. И что еще мне хотелось бы отметить. У эскимосов нет такого” — meaning: “Totem animals. And I wanted to mention: there is no such at Eskimos”).

Pushing to the approriate groups

(Maybe)

• it is true that igloo can deserve more consideration: I am not sure whether it is used by Yupik and Sireniki, thus, its having deleted may turn out to be justified. But the fact that Eskimos had distinct kind of house for summer versus winter should remain lifted out, becuse this is true for Siberian Yupiks too , not ony for Inuits.
• Although Siberian Yupik and Sireniki too had distinct words /qayaq/ and /aŋjaq/ , I do not know if /qayaq/ was really a kayak. Also I am not sure if Yupik /aŋjaq/ was corresponding to umiak. Thus, having deleted the text (about distinction between these as the two main boat types at Eskimos) may turn out to be justified. For resolving this, the exact distinction between the /kajaq/ versus /aŋjaq/ boat types should be clarified (possibly from ). Although a comparative article asserts that the Yupik /aŋjaq/ corresponds to Inuit umiaq, if that is true (I'd like to search also other sources affirming it), then the text about umiaks can remain lifted out, too. What I can verify with sources now: also Yupiks used various types of boats (thus such a note could remain lifted out).

Hue / shade principle

I think some subgroup-specific information can remain in the general-Eskimo article, if

• it is only mentioned, not described long in details
• and it hues / shadows naturally the general-Eskimo information, promotes good readability, keeps interest of reader alive by providing short example

E.g. igloo can be mentioned when describing the summer versus winter house distinction.