Jump to content

Talk:Lakota language/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What if?…

Haun! What a step forward if someone, preferably a native speaker, could roll his sleeves and start a Wiki in Lak'ota! Be it in Oglala or any other "dialect" (please see below). I began to learn this tremendously interesting language — by myself, with the 'help' of a so imperfect book — four years ago, but it is quite uneasy to exchange in Lak'ota in my remote hills of W. Brittany, France… User:Korenyuk

I agree - I have noticed how a "Lakota Wikepdia" is conspicuous by its absence from theList of Wikipedias! See also my comment below, under the sub-heading "A New Wikipedia". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lakota is not a dialect

This is arguable, but Lakota is not a dialect of Sioux, anymore than Norwegian is a dialect of Danish. All the links on the page consider Lakota to be a seperate language, and to the best of my knowledge the speakers of Lakota consider it a seperate language. That's the standard usually used to seperate a language from a dialect.--Prosfilaes 06:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, it is arguable. generally Lakota is described as a dialect in the linguistic literature. but, we dont have to make a stance: we can simply call it a lect (or a variety). the analogy of Danish & Norwegian is not the same. Norwegian is often said to be a linguistic dialect of Norwegian-Swedish-Danish. however, languages are usually not identified by linguistics, but rather by social conventions (with a little linguistics thrown in). anyway, what needs to be indicated in that Lakota is under a node called Sioux and is sister to Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonai and that these 3 sisters are mutually intelligible. peace – ishwar  (speak) 06:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Lect as a word makes my hair stand on end. It's jargon, and shouldn't be used in a general article, (or really anywhere in Wikipedia, IMO); there are better options that won't confuse the general reader. If it means anything larger than dialect, I don't get that from the linked article, and the word strongly brings up associations of dialect, so we are taking a stance. The social conventions here seem to strongly indicate that it is a language. --Prosfilaes 06:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
ok. linguistics does have a technical vocabulary like other sciences. of course, lect can be explained. i dont know about the social conventions part: i have heard that Lakotas generally call themselves Sioux. the convention in the linguistics community to call it a dialect. – ishwar  (speak) 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I've done some reading in introductory linguistics and I've never heard of lect. Talk:Variety (linguistics) mentions it's not used in a recent introductory textbook nor a recent dictionary. Some technical vocabulary is fine, but an article that the average person would read (as opposed to a technical article that only a linguist would know the title of) needs to keep technical vocabulary to a minimum, preferably stuff findable in the dictionary or at least in an introductory linguistics book.
(Frankly, it sounds like bad slang, but my taste probably won't be the prime rule for use of words on Wikipedia. Yo, man, you like my 'lect?)
All the links on this page lead to pages that consider Lakota a seperate language. The Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17, considers it a seperate language ("Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan Language"). Looking up Lakota in my university library catalog (OSU library catalog), shows that the LoC subject headings treat Lakota as a dialect, but that most, but not all of the books, on Lakota treat it as a language.--Prosfilaes 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
hi.
Re lect: the term lect is used by linguists. maybe you will encounter if you read more specific literature, such as in journals. i really dont know the frequency of its occurrence. in my experience, i think that it most often encounter it in descriptive work where the degree of mutually intelligibility of a particular idiom with respect to related neighboring idioms -- since the linguist author has not investigated this area, the term lect can be used as an ambiguous term that does not indicate this. i think that is a common usage.
the other usage of the term is with a meaning that is essentially equivalent to the term variety, that is the definition of this lect/variety is a something like "a particular idiom of speech/sign that is used by a certain community that may be either an individual or group of persons that share a common feature such as the same social group, the same geographic group, etc." perhaps in this sense, the term variety is more common (?). you would need to do a corpus search and/or ask different linguists/language lovers their experience with this term to say for search. (why not ask some people around here? i can think of user:kwamikagami, user:Mark Dingemanse, user:Angr, user:Mustafaa, and (although rarely here) user:Billposer. you could also send a question to Linguist List: Ask a Linguist).
i just had a look at David Crystal's encyclopedia: you can find the term lect on p. 24 in a discussion including dialect, idiolect, & variety (1st ed. 1987). you can probably find it in other linguistic encyclopedias/dictionaries/lexicons (although i havent looked). about using technical vocab, i agree. however, encyclopedias are for explaining technical topics, so maybe it is not a bad idea to have a better discussion of some technical terms (even though we dont use them generally within Wikipedia articles).
Re Lakota as language/dialect: well, i should say up front that i am not a Siouanist, so i have read basically zero Siouan literature. however, i think i have generally read that Lakota is essentially a mutually intelligible idiom of a larger Sioux complex. i dont know about the details of this, such as how great the variation among Lakota speakers or between Lakota speakers & Yankton speakers, etc. anyway, i really doubt that most books will consider Lakota not to be mutually intelligible with other Sioux idioms. but, i must make clear that not all works will trouble themselves with being as precise as this. as you probably know, the term language is rather fuzzy in the range of things that it refers to. many writers may use this term in different ways (cf. the use of language as it applies to Swedish & Norwegian and the use as it applies to Chinese). i will have a look at the sketch. but, even if it is not precise in its terminology, i do think that the reference i cite (Parks & Rankin 2001) is being precise because they are not concerned with a description of Lakota but rather the relationships between all Siouan languages. if you really want to determine a definitive statement about Lakota genetic relations, you will need to leave sketches and investigate a complete grammar and papers on regional variation within Sioux and perhaps also including Assiniboine and Stoney (since they were considered all dialects of Sioux a while ago).
well, i probably wrote too much. hopefully, i explained my thoughts well. peace – ishwar  (speak) 20:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
oh, if you want to investigate (which will be good for the article in so many ways if you summarize your readings), i good place to start is probably Willem de Reuse's thorough bibliography One Hundread Years of Lakota Linguistics (1887-1987). if you want, i can ask Willem himself & tell you what he says (he has done fieldwork on Lakota himself), although you need not take my word for it. – ishwar  (speak) 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on technical topics, but I think they should be confined to technical articles, not articles like Lakota langauge. I'm not terribly concerned with the relations of Lakota to other langauges, and I've been exiled to a land without a decent library. But as you say, the word language means a lot of different things, and I think the way the word is used in common parlace has more to do with politics and social choices than mutual understandability, and the speakers of Lakota have chosen to treat it as a seperate language from Sioux, with its own orthography and teaching materials. --Prosfilaes 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The dispute over the term "dialect" is rather preposterous and unfruitful. Anyone here should agree, once and for all, on the real meaning of the word (i.e., etymologically "exchanging concepts" etc.) and make it clear that no derogatory, pejorative or denigrating notion should stick to it. As any linguist, I know that in the Greek sense of the term, all languages are dialects I can speak (λέγω [and "lect" is simply "what is said or read"]) to make things known through (δια-) it. There is too often confusion between this simple notion and terms like branches of a group or family on one side, and disparaging words like the French "patois", or even "sabir" and "baragouin" on the other side. User:Korenyuk
In one sense of the word dialect all languages are dialects - that is they belong to a group of languages or dialects with varying degrees of mutual intelligibility. Whether a language is a separate language or a dialect of a larger language is often a very subjective decision and it is frequently based on political and social factors. Many languages in China are considered dialects of Chinese despite the fact that they are not mutually intelligible with Chinese. On the other hand Czech and Slovak are considered independent languages while their mutual intelligibility is almost perfect.
Lakota is highly mutually intelligible with Western Dakota (Yankton-Yanktonai) but only partly with Eastern Dakota (Santee-Sisseton). However, to say that Lakota is a dialect of Dakota or vice versa would be unacceptable for both Lakota and Dakota people (because of the lack of a self designation term identical across the dialects but also because of political reasons). On the other hand Dakota language has two dialects with two sub-dialects in each. Lakota itself has two or three regional dialects (distinct from each other only through a small number of lexical variants). Contrary to the common belief and some statements in literature Lakota and Dakota speakers do not understand the Assinniboin (Nakota) or Stoney (Nakoda) languages nor any other Siouan language.
Mutual intelligibility as well as the notion of togetherness are affected largely by the extent of mutual contact. Lakota’s have had literarily no contact with the Stoney for more than four hundred years, minimal contact (i.e. fights) with the Assiniboin for the same period, and very sporadic contact with the Eastern Dakota in the past two hundred years (some Santee-Dakotas fled to the Lakotas after the 1862 uprising and a few of them remained there). The only group that Lakotas have had more or less continuous contact with are the Western Dakota (Yankton-Yanktonai), but even these people were in every day contact with only some Lakota tribes (i.e. within the Standing Rock Reservation where Hunkpapas and Upper Yanktonai’s live together, some contact between the Sičháŋǧu and the Yankton due to the proximity of their reservation and between the Lower Brulé and the Lower Yanktonais for the same reason). Note that although Western Dakota is phonemically closer to Eastern Dakota lexically it is much closer to Lakota.[1]
It would not be incorrect to say that the “Sioux” language has three main dialects: Lakota, Western Dakota and Eastern Dakota. The term Sioux, however, is considered politically incorrect by most Lakota and Dakota people today despite the fact that it is still used in informal settings as well as in most official names of the Lakota tribes (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Oglala Lakota Sioux Tribe etc.).
Having all these social, political and historical aspects in mind I believe it is more appropriate to describe Lakota as a language of its own. Thiyopa (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Thiyopa, July 2nd 2009

Velar vs. glottal friction

Regarding "...those with velar friction ([pˣ tˣ kˣ]), which occur before /a/, /ã/, /o/, /õ/, /ẽ/, and /ű/...," I'm confused by the mention here of /ẽ/. Could it be that the intended phoneme was /e/ or /ĩ/?

Also, above that, where it now says "three nasal vowels, /ĩ ã ũ/ (phonetically [ɪ̃ ə̃ ʊ̃]", it used to say "three nasal vowels, /ĩ ã ũ/ (phonetically [ɪ̃ ʊ̃ ə̃]" and I changed the places of [ʊ̃] and [ə̃]. Hope that is right; if not, sorry, and please revert it.

Whoops. Those were both mistakes on my part; thanks for catching them! --Whimemsz 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lakota in text

Unlike English which has settled into more or less standardized albeit irregular spelling, Lakota has a relatively short history as a written language. Unlike Tsalagi which has its own alphabet and character set, Lakota has been written using various adaptations of the Roman alphabet. To the present time, the only Lakota dictionaries have been bilingual, geared toward assisting non-Lakota-speaking individuals understand Lakota in terms of their own languages. To date, no Lakota dictionary has been published by the Lakota in Lakota for the Lakota. Until the Lakota people themselves make manifest their own standards of spelling and semantics, it is of dubious value and perhaps even a little arrogant for outsiders to try to establish these standards for them by citing a particular work as if it were "The Bible of the Lakota Language". Hotankapi (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Check my nasals?

I've added some information on enclitics, including a table with examples from Deloria's Dakota Texts. I didn't have Deloria in front of me, though, so I was working from my notes. I have a tendency to miss nasal vowels as well as glottal consonants, so someone might want to check to see if I made any mistakes. Cnilep (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The same goes for the subsections I added under "Grammar." By the way, I didn't cite sources on each subsection, but each is based on Rood & Taylor 1996, Buechel 1983, and/or Deloria 1932. Cnilep (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that an external link was added on 3 October by an anonymous editor from 70.114.196.201. That link was removed on 9 October by Thiyopa. Perhaps the anonymous editor or other interested parties would care to argue for the inclusion of the link. Then Thiyopa or other editors could respond, and we could come to a consensus on whether to add the link. Cnilep (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, would the battling lakhota.com / lakhota.org editors please use this discussion page to justify any additions or removals. Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


I just find it sad that Wikipedia would list such highly irrelevant sites as www.lakhota.com and http://www.elexion.com/lakota/iyapi/index2.html. It is obvious that as an underdocumented language, Lakota is not represented by a large number of quality web-sites. In my opinion, lakhota.com and elexico.com are among the worst in terms of linguistic accuracy or relevance of information they provide. Moreover, to call lakhota.com an "official" web-site is extremely misguiding. There is no official web-site for the Lakota language and the web-sites can only be ranked by their level of linguistic accurancy and relevance. Thiyopa (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


So what is your opinion on this Cnilep? 195.22.57.199 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept Thiyopa's suggestion that links be considered on the basis of "their level of linguistic accuracy and relevance," though I don't think we need get into 'ranking' as such. I have skimmed Lakhota.com, lakhota.org (aka Lakhota Language Consortium), and elexion.com/lakota/iyapi (aka Lakhota Iyapi). Strictly in terms of relevance to linguistic description, I don't see a whole lot to recommend either Lakhota.com or Lakhota Language Consortium as web resources. Neither site uses Lakhota, nor offers on-line descriptions of the language. Each does, however, offer pedagogical materials and dictionaries for sale. While I will not argue for the inclusion of either on linguistic grounds, neither do object to either.
Lakhota Iyapi, on the other hand, does offer some description of the language in the form of a 'pronunciation guide' and a few word lists. As I said, I only skimmed the site, so I will not vouch for its accuracy, but it does seem to meet some threshold for relevance. Cnilep (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
lakhota.org (lakhota language consortium) appears to include substantial use of lakhota language - at leats more so than the other sites e.g. here [1] - and it uses the actual phonemic lakhota orthography described in the article which the other sites do not.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


That sounds very rational and fair. Both Lakhota.com and Lakhota.org offer dictionaries and there is little obvious difference between them. But have you, Cnilep, actually seen those dictionaries? They are incomparable. The dictionary pubished by Lakhota.org is the first reliable dictionary of the language. Ever! Twenty thousand entries, 40 thousand example sentences, 1112 pages, 300 native contributors involved, 25 years in making etc. It is among the best dictionaries on Native American languages. You can't compare this with a booklet with a few hundred words written by someone who is neither a linguist or a native speaker and who, most of all, has no idea what "phonemic" spelling means. And the same is true about the elexicon web-site. Moreover, while Lakhota.org doesn't claim to be "the official Lakhota language site" they do have a majority of native people on their board of dirrectors and they work closely with educational institutions on the tribal reservations. Lakhota.com, on the other hand, claiming to be the official site, is a project of an individual, one that has little or more likey no association with the tribal structures whatsoever.
Do I openly support Lakhota.org over everything else? Yes, I do. I have studied from their stuff and was able to compare it to most other things out there. This is my opinion, but if you look for objectivity of this article, you'd better do your homework too.

Thiyopa (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Again I request that anyone adding external links also describe the link here, including a description of why the link is appropriate. Please consult Wikipedia:External links for description of what makes an external link appropriate or inappropriate. Note especially WP:LINKSTOAVOID. It would also be helpful if editors removing inappropriate links use this space to detail why they are inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about editing wikipedia. I only know how to speak Lakota, I grew up speaking Lakota, I am an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the author of Lakhota.Com. Can the other website owner say this? No. I am not into battles and find little interest in "coversations." All I request is that my link not be removed repeatedly over and over again by those who wish to war with me. Our website has many articles on the Lakhota / Lakota language, culture and history. We have free online study. We have a children's section for Lakota stories and downloads. We have a forum with 294 members. Our website was considered the top resource for more than a decade with many news articles written about us and even Touchstone Pictures working with us. Our link used to be on Wiki for years without anyone removing it until recently. I ask that the war against my link cease. -Tashna Tnwcreations (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also don't believe that the link is of sufficient quality to merit inclusion, certainly not under the title "official". It seems very close to being a personal web site and it is true that the linguistic information is of a less than professioal a quality. For example it seems to give faulty forms of some commonly used Lakhota words such as "hokšíla" "boy" being written with the non-palatal "s" letter as "hoksila" and wičáša "man" written with the non palatal c and non palatal s as "wicasa" in the websites "family" section. Probably because of limitations in the encoding of nonenglish letters in the html but not exactly good professional style language teaching. The worst problem however seems to be that the link is only promoted and repeatedly inserted by the websites administrator - something that seems to violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID rule 4 about promotion of websites and the rulea about conflict of interest. To me a good guideline is that untill at least an editor that is not personally affiliated with lakota.com argues for the links inclusion it is not worthy of inclusion. It also seems to violate rules 1 and 5 since the free information on the site is basic vocabulary for kids and most of the other content is advertisements for books written by User:Tnwcreations. Also arguments such as "it has been here for years" is not valid since both wikipedias standards have heightened and everyone has the right to remove content that is not deemed to be of sufficient quality and doing so does not constitute "warring". ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe Lakhota.Com to be a wealth of Lakota language information and should be included. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More links have been added. I haven't checked these out yet, so I can't comment on their relevance and quality. As is my practice, however, I am removing them so that we can discuss them here and come to consensus on their inclusion.

  • Sinte Gleska University (University for the Lakota Tribe, has Lakota language lesson books and cassettes for study)

200906006 Sinte Gleska who including Ablert White Hat and many other Elders of the Rosebud reservation have tried extremely hard to recover their language from the Old Ones, I have visited there many times many years ago and know they are trying hard to find who they are by finding their own language again. For the Lakota the Language, Tribe, and Culture is All One Thing. If anything Sinte Gleska would have a more purer dialect of the Lakota language than anywhere else (other than Oglala Lakota College http://www.olc.edu/) . The language was almost lost and would suggest that Sinte Gleska, Tashna (who is lakota), and other Lakota people be allowed to recover their language and maybe somewhere along the line find themselfs. I'm saying this before this gets worse and the tribe has to stand up and fight for this page, like everything else they have fought to get back over the years. The Elders and People of this Tribe should have their say because there is many Lakotas today who do not know the Lakota Language and is too far away from the Rez to learn. At this moment in time the language is not fully recovered and those forums help Lakotas find their way back and learn the language. At one time there was teachers in the forum helping teach the language, hopefully that will happen soon again. Be careful of people who are not part of the tribe and making money off the Language, its creating confusion being the language has not been defined yet. Here is a link of what is taught by the Tribe on amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0884324486/ref=s9_wishf_gw_t?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3UTZWJM8ZGGDY&colid=30ZI5X5Z1DD9W&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_r=1TZY24XTC179GS5ZPV7G&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470937931&pf_rd_i=507846 which is printed by Oglala Lakota College http://www.olc.edu/. (Tipifire)

I also think it might be worthwhile to revisit all of the current External links, and possibly the materials mentioned under Learning Lakota, and to rationalize both sections. Cnilep (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sinte Gleska is in fact a Lakhota institution of higher learning, the tribal college of the rosebud lakhota tribe. The two other links are Tashna Whirlwindhorse's personal websites again.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the author website of Tashna should not be included under Lakota Language as her focus is not exclusively Lakota Linguistics. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at these three pages. While Sinte Gleska is a college on the Rosebud reservation that offers Lakhota language classes, the web page itself doesn't appear to say anything about the language. This link may fit better at Lakota people. Tnwcreations.com (aka 'Another Lakhota language author site') is a personal web page consisting only of links; it seems to be an attempt to get Lakhota.com in through the back door. I think that tnwcreations.com should not be included here, but that Lakhota.com should be evaluated on its own merits. TNW Creations Forum (aka 'Another Lakhota language author forum site') is a BBS for individuals "interested in the Lakhota Language and Culture." I would say that it might be appropriate except for the facts that (a) I don't want to complete the required registration, so I don't know how relevant the contents really are, and (b) its owner keeps adding links to various pages, despite a WP:Conflict of interest. Cnilep (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
TNW Creations is the professional author site of Tashna Erin LaVaux (other psue. Tashna Whirlwindhorse). I don't believe the author site belongs on the Lakota language wiki. However, I *do* believe Lakhota.com should be included as a great information resource. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

These are my opinions regarding whether to keep or delete the current External links. Maybe others would like to share their opinions, too? Cnilep (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It reproduces texts by E. Deloria, Bushotter, Riggs, Buechel and others.
Keep it is one of the few sites with consistent spelling. Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep I believe the more quality resources, the better picture of linguistic accuracy we paint. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. It is relevant, but contains inaccuracies (see also my comments above).
Remove it has always been my opininon that this type of web-sites add to the overall confusion about the language due to the level of inaccuracy. The Wikipedia guidance for external links say that "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material" should be avoided. Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutral This site has a small section of language information. Contains quite a bit of cultural info. Might be better suited to the Lakota People wiki. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. It offers a dictionary, the quality of which Thiyopa vouches for above, but is a bit light on other content. Maybe just hyperlink from New Lakota Dictionary in the Learning Lakota section?
Keep - although the content is not a primarly on language and the site does have the largest number of contemporary texts in the standard orthography and it has a nice alphabet site with audio Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see a problem with the site, however I am concerned by the number of external links by the same author, Jan Ulrich (New Lakota Dictionary, Lakhota.org). These appear to all be sites owned by the same individual and the percentage of external links is currently monopolized with these links. It seems to be a push for product promotion. As far as quality, I say keep. I recommend only one link for this author be included and not all of his links. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seems like a decent resource, but I'm a bit put off by mandatory registration. Also, correct the title to Lakota Language Forum - Lakȟól’iya Owáakhiye Othí.
"Keep." I participate in this forum and it is my opinion that it is the best internet resource on the language. The mandatory registration might put some people off but it seem necessary for keeping a higher standar discussion. Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove I agree with Cnilep. See my above response. This is a second website by the same author, Jan Ulrich. I believe we should not monopolize external links with links for one author. I still maintain this to be a push for product promotion which violates wiki rules. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Minimal content, but it looks accurate, and includes its own set of links.
Keep It is a good site. Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Limited information but still useful. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. It has non-standard orthography in some places, but I like the historical content.
Week remove Lots of misconceptions there. Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep This site is run by the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre. This resource is definitely worthy of inclusion. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Remove. Academic working paper - too specialized.
comment I believe this one could profitably be hyperlink from the phonology section ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Maunus Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
comment Maybe it could be cited or summarized in the phonology section, and then included as a reference? Cnilep (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Remove I agree, cite in the phonology section but removed as an external link. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Remove. It's a good resource, but it's already hyperlinked from Bibliography section.
Neutral Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove Another Jan Ulrich site. See credits at bottom of webpage. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. Probably more specialized than what most Wikipedia users are looking for, but the author claims to be an interested amateur.
Strong Remove it uses linguistic terminology to make an impression but I believe most of the statements are inaccurate. Thiyopa (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with Cnilep. Cancega (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of discussion to date

The discussion above is a bit difficult to read, so I will try to summarize it. I suggest that if there are links for which we cannot reach consensus, we request an outside opinion, either from the WP:External links/Noticeboard or WP:WikiProject Languages. (Full disclosure: Maunus is a volunteer at WikiProject Languages, and I am a volunteer at the related WP:WikiProject Linguistics.) Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Useful texts, consistent spelling, a quality resource. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Remove. Inaccuracies, possibly misleading, more cultural than language information. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Keep. Light on content, but good information on alphabet. We may have too many links to sites by Jan Ullrich. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
No consensus. Good internet resource with high standards. Mandatory registration, another Jan Ullrich site. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Keep. High-quality information, despite brevity. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
No consensus. Run by Saskatchewan Indian Resource Center, good historical information. Non-standard orthography, contains misconceptions. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Remove. Already linked from bibliography, another Jan Ullrich site. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Remove. Overly specialized, inaccurate. (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
No consensus. Created by a Lakhota speaker, offers downloads, contains a lot of information. Inaccurate, questionable relevance, past conflict of interest from site’s creator Tashna . (as summarized by Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))


Cnilep, thank you for the summary. I pretty much identify with the results apart from three points.
1) The owner of the Lakota.com site is not a Lakhota speaker by any stretch of the term "speaker". Even a brief examination of the site's content by someone who knows anything about the language would reveal that.
2) Also, I am registered at the Lakota Language Forum and participate there often. It is the most detailed and consistent learning site. It offers a lot of services, all of them for free, including the on-line version of New Lakota Dictionary. There is no equivalent to this site on the internet with respect to the Lakota language.
3) Thirdly, I don't see how a Sketch of Lakhota written by Rood and Taylor is a Jan Ullrich material. I don't object the removal, but I do object to keeping the Lakota.com site, which is misleading in every sense of the word.
Thiyopa (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion, specifically about www.lakhota.com, at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Link to www.lakhota.com at Lakota language. I think that other external links can be discussed there, too. Cnilep (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A new Wikipedia?

Echoing the sentiments at "What if" above, I have noticed that there is not a "Lakota Wikipedia" onList of Wikipedias. So, would any one wish to start one? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the media

Worth noting in the text that Lakota is used in the film Dances with Wolves? Fig (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hau

I have removed the suggestion that ha'u kola may be borrowed from English. Rood and Taylor (1996) only suggest that it is from a non-Siouan language. Buechel (1983) doesn't support the suggestion that it is English, either. I know of no source that supports this - I have a vague recollection of suggestions that in comes from another Plains Indian language, but nothing I can support right now. Cnilep (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1
  1. ^ New Lakota Dictionary, LLC 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lakota_language/Archive_1&oldid=403982217"