Talk:Moriori language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DKYL808.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ling 102

Nice article! It has a lot of good sources and info. If possible, for improvement I would include syntax (such as sentence order) along with some grammar (particles, common words). The text states that the language is similar, but also different from Maori. Perhaps elaborating on the similarities/differences would add more text to the article along with providing the reader a better understanding of the language. Looks good though! -Travis

I appreciate the feedback! I will definitely try to look for more information on syntax and grammar but I am having difficulties finding information on those specific categories. I will also dig into elaborating on the similarities of Māori and Moriori. Thank you

DKYL808 (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Not really POV, but it is rife with unsourced 'some people say...' statements. Ashmoo 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's apparently source material there, it's just that the article's worded as if the author is hedging. If someone with access to those sources could be more explicit about what they say and where, it would improve things a lot. --Tirana 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about. Maybe it needs to be rephrased, but the fact that some people say what they say remains the same. It's worth mentioning what some people think (because it's true, I've heard them talking about it here in Auckland) It should say that this hasn't been proven yet or is subject to debate. But to put a "weasel" templete on it, just because you cannot be bothered to rephrase it is unfair to those people. In fact, I am going to rephrase it straight away!--B. Jankuloski 08:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not about not being bothered to rephrase. See WP:WEASEL. Basically when it says 'some people say' the question wikipedia editors ask is: who are 'some people'? WP requires verifiable sources for all text in articles. Even if you have heard people speak it, or speak it yourself, that is not enough for Wikipedia, you also need proof in the form of a cite from a reliable source. Ashmoo 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of all that (I am a wikipedia admin), but I just wanted to mention the existence of another view without proving it right or wrong (authoritative or not). I added to this that it's being disputed, so no one can be mislead to think that there is something proven in it. This sound pretty complete to me. --B. Jankuloski 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we should present all points of view, but we should say where they come from, not merely that they exist, so that people can judge for themselves their authoritativeness. "Some say" could mean the guy at the pub who also thinks Moriori are the remnants of an ancient Celtic tribe, or it could be a professor of linguistics, and the reader should be told which. Is it a genuine dispute, or ignorant contrarian musing? Hence verifiability. It's on the bottom of every edit page for a reason. --Tirana 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Moriori is still being used needs more than "some people claim" if it is even to be mentioned here. This is not something that is subject to varying points of view. If it's true, it can be verified. The views of people who have no expertise in a subject, and who are not themselves the subject, have no place in an encyclopaedia article.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

(Underlining mine, as is the bold brint in the last sentence.)

This rules out what you heard in Auckland, unless the speaker was a Chatham Islands resident who knows the users of the language, or else a linguist with specialised knowledge in the subject. In the latter case, the expert's published views need to be cited. Unless this claim is backed up by such an expert source, it should be removed. Copey 2 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A citation for that claim has been requested since August 2006, with no response, so I've deleted the claim (and added a citation for the claim that it is extinct). -- Avenue 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand says there has been a linguistic revival movement, starting in 2001. I've added that to the article, with reference & link. Aridd (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Galbraith's work

Sarah Galbraith's publication, A Grammar of the Moriori language, mentioned in the references, does not seem to be generally available. The only other reference I've found to it on the web that is not derived from this article is a comment on a page about the Chathams, where it appears that this is a Ph.D. thesis from the University of Auckland. Can anyone offer any further information on it, and where it can be obtained? Koro Neil (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd try simply writing to the University and asking for a copy. Perhaps that's not possible, but purposes such as Wikipedia or academic research should certainly justify the attempt if there is no other way to get hold of a copy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

Matson, J. (1991). THE LANGUAGE, THE LAW AND THE TREATY OF WAITANGI. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 100(4), 343-363. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20706416

Map, R., & Marker, A. Moriori people.

DKYL808 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Moriori.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes in Consonants

This section is a shoddy piece of work. It's not clear whether the use of for indicates that the first item has been replaced by the second, or vice versa. Probably both, since we have K for NG as well as NG for K. Some of them are nonsensical, like M for K, along with others. It doesn't mention that Māori T is represented by T, R and TCH in MŌRIORI. Or that NG in Māori appears as both NG and K in Mōriori. I wonder if the editor has been doing his own not very expert analysis of texts or word lists—original research, in other words. I am taking it on myself to delete this section. Some of the other stuff needs fixing.

Recent changes (October 2018) have been made to this article by editors who lack an understanding of the field of Polynesian linguistics, and this lack is obvious. Mōriori and Māori are not "distantly related" to Hawai'ian and Rapanuian; they are closely related, though more closely related to Cook Island Māori and Tahitian. They are less closely related to Samoan and Tongan, less closely still to the Fijian languages and Rotuman, distantly to the languages of Melanesia and Micronesia, more distantly still to the languages of Indonesia and the Philippines, and very distantly to the indigenous languages of Taiwan.

The connection made to the reo ā rohe of Kai Tahu is simplistic. For one thing, there is a difference historically between the speech of descendants of the first wave of Ngāi Tahu invaders who intermarried with Waitaha and Kāti Māmoe women, and spoke the K dialect, and the later wave who brought their women with them, and retained the dialect they brought with them from the East Coast of the North Island. And as I said, Mōriori has a mix of ng and k forms.

The style of the changes also needs fixing. Sorry to be picky, e hoa mā, but this is an encyclopedia, and needs information that is both accurate and clear, and it needs good writing. Koro Neil (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted sections

I deleted several sections as unintelligible and self-contradictory gibberish. Couldn't be bothered to verify, as when an article is this bad it's easier to just delete and write a new one.

There was an interesting claim that Moriori was closest to the Maori of S.Island, which would suggest it was a dialect of Maori, but this was in the geography section and unref'd. Since a statement of whether Moriori was a dialect of Maori or a separate language could be contentious, I thought it best to delete rather than let it stand unsupported. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, kwami. I have been trying to confirm the South Island conection, it is a little hard to find and does not seem to have too much traction. Could be very relevant if it is more than idle speculation. I can not speak to the bad sections, have been working over at the Moriori page. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)).

Sure, Dushan. I haven't been able to find Galbraith, BTW. I'll look a bit more. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Extinct when?

VeryRarelyStable and Gsueso2 editted the infobox today about when the language became extinct, on the death of William Baucke (1931) or Hirawanu Tapu (1898). It might be worth bringing up here. IMO a language is not necessarily extinct on the death of its last L1 speaker. I think that is the current view within linguistics, although I am no expert on this topic. Languages can have a healthy life long after the last L1 speaker has died, or after it has evolved into some new language. When did Latin become extinct, or did it ever? It might be better simply to spell it out that Hirawanu Tapu was the last native L1 speaker of the language. A dead language however might be easier to define, as when a language reaches the stage of having no active use in any form: Punic. I am not sure if Moriori has reached that stage yet. The infobox parameters are not too helpful in this respect because they require a short simple answer when one does not always exist. Should we simply not the 'extinct' field empty and explain more fully in the article body? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a plan. I could find no reliable references for this exact question either way. However Omniglot says "Moriori is the formerly extinct language"[1] as to what that is worth I have no idea. If there is uncertainty we have room in the text to explain that. As an aside 'Moriori: language death' [2] was interesting but something from 1996 may not solve this problem. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Māori-Moriori

I removed this from the language family list and replaced it with Māori. This is also being discussed here. Talk:Māori_language#Māori-Moriori Maungapohatu (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Answered on that other discussion thread. —VeryRarelyStable 03:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits CoI

Regarding recent edits by Chastaurima, without making any judgement as to the merits of the edits, it appears that this editor has a conflict of interest based on this conversation where they admit to being a board member of the Hokotehi Moriori Trust.

@Chastaurima: I don't wish to discourage you from editing, but for this topic, since you appear to have a conflict, if you have any edits you wish to propose please discuss them here first and another editor can make any warranted changes.-161.29.216.215 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you. This article is outdated which is why I proposed some of those changes. I don’t understand why the paragraph about the Moriori Language Week petition was deleted as it was in the news, and I cited 3 different media publications. Also, the updated app isn’t listed, but the old redundant app is listed. Regarding my conflict, I am Moriori, I am actively engaged in the language and I am an elected board member of the Hokotehi Moriori Trust. Does that exclude me from suggesting changes? It just seems odd since I’m more informed than most about the recent developments. How do we work through this in a way that maintains the integrity of the data quality system but also provides more accurate, up to date information? Chastaurima (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Put simply, you must use independent reliable secondary sources to back everything you add to this article that is not clearly factually correct and undisputed. This trust is promoting matters to do with Moriori which means it isn't independent, whether or not what it says in correct. You can get around that problem by making it clear that what you are writing about Moriori is the opinion of that trust (and therefore not necessarily correct). But if you do that you must use balance and weighting, meaning give alternative opinions and don't fill the article only with opinion from the trust that may be of relatively minor importance. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I still don’t think this applies to some of the updates which are describing events, validated by independent media sources (cited 3, but there are others). They’re also not controversial or disputed. The petition for example, is just a thing that happened. It doesn’t make any claims about history or linguistics. It isn’t promoting anything either or seeking supporters or anything like that. I suppose I could accept the argument that I have a conflict since I am heavily involved in Moriori tribal matters. But outside of that I don’t get the other points. Chastaurima (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Chas, could you please set out here what edits you think are needed to the page along with any reliable citations? Cheers.-161.29.216.215 (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In 2023, there was a petition for the establishment of a Moriori Language Week.

https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2023/11/30/ta-re-moriori-speakers-want-their-own-language-week/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497479/moriori-call-for-official-week-to-celebrate-indigenous-language

https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2023/09/07/petition-seeks-support-for-official-moriori-language-week/ Chastaurima (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This content could be added... but don't add it if the content is benefiting/promoting the Moriori Trust. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the standard we work to. If the content is of encyclopaedic value to the page about the Moriori language, it should be added. If the tone of the addition is promotional, that tone should be changed.

Further: @Chastaurima has a conflict of interest when writing about the trust; the trust itself does not have a conflict of interest regarding the language. There are multiple editors here taking too hard a line on this, and I see very little risk from Chastaurima’s edits and proposed edits. All users who are piping up about this should read WP:COI, not just Chas. — HTGS (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I just want to note that Chas shouldn't add content about the trust but they are welcome to add more info about Moriori and Moriori language. Someone else could add content about the trust as long as if they don't have connections with it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add content about the Hokotehi Moriori Trust unless it's referenced with reliable sources. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In 2024, author Kate Preece published a trilingual children’s book: Ten Nosey Weka, featuring words in English, Māori and Moriori.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018945428/ten-nosey-weka-a-book-helping-to-revive-ta-re-moriori Chastaurima (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This and your other suggested edit seem uncontroversial to me. I will add them to the page.-161.29.216.215 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the Moriori language which is extinct. What this trust and you are promoting is a new language loosely based around the extinct language, which is also called Moriori. Part of that promotion effort is to pretend the new version is a natural progression from the old version, an old version you say almost died out but is being saved from the grave by a last minute regenration effort. That cannot be done because the old version is gone forever. The new version is simply an interesting academic construct. By calling the new version Moriori, many people are confused into believing it is the same as the old version. This new version, I think, should have an article of it's own. I think the new version does deserve mention in this article but it should be given its correct wp:weighting. A seperate subsection called 'Moriori Renaissance' should be added that should take up no more than a quarter of this article, with a reference to the main article on the Moriori Renaissance. There is no need to fill up this article with the day-to-day activities of any outfit promoting this new Moriori language, such as your trust is doing. A better use of space here, I think, would be to add detail of the efforts made in the late 19th century my missionaries and others to save as much detail as possible from the smoldering ashes of what remained of the old Moriori language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of opinion in your post here. The extent to which the language is a ‘progression’ of the traditional Moriori language is a material matter, which shouldn’t be casually dismissed without considering what evidence there is that modern Moriori differs from Moriori used in the early 1800s. It’s also worth considering what degree of language evolution is allowable. Your post implies that language is static. Although the works of Alexander Shand, Samuel Deighton, William Baucke, Hirawanu Tapu, and William Davis, all provide the basis of modern Moriori vocabulary and grammar, I do accept that due to the break in its usage for many years, and due to the change to the context (or environment) in which it can be used, there will be a difference between modern and traditional. But I disagree with the implication that the connection is limited only to its name and that one is not an evolution of the other. I also don’t see any evidence for that.

https://waateanews.com/2023/11/20/john-middleton-pofessional-teaching-fellow-and-doctoral-student-in-the-university-of-aucklands-faculty-of-arts/

https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/301014617/meet-the-people-hoping-to-revitalise-the-moriori-language-in-aotearoa

The suggested updates that I am proposing are also in line with the content that already exists on the article e.g the 2021 app. Much of the existing content would fail this type of screening. Chastaurima (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the main Moriori article under 'Origins' you will see mention made of the language and how and why I say it has gone forever. That is backed by what is a top rate source - King, a professional historian. That also explains why I call the new version simply an interesting academic exercise. There is very little, if anything, left of the old language to work with, which means the new version is just an educated guess of what the old version was like. Please compare Moriori with Hebrew, a fully revived language: Hebrew never became extinct except as a first language - it was always used as the religious language of the Jews, with copious written examples of its use. The Hebrew of today is still a constructed language but it is a continuation of the older version. There is no such strong connection for Moriori linking the old with the new. I think Hebrew can therefore be described as an evolving langue, whereas that description is less easily made with Moriori. Even other reconstructed languages like modern Cornish have a better connection with the past version than does Moriori - there are some written texts of Cornish and a vigorous effort was made to capture elements of Cornish reasonably early after its demise as a first language. I don't know enough about current research into Moriori to comment in any detail, but I will say that the two links above should not be used as RSSs. One is an opinion piece in a newspaper and the other is a radio interview with an Englishman who has an interest in Polynesian languages. Most other references used for the new Moriori are of equally low quality. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, to clarify, my resistance to the current proposed additions is not so much conflict of interest but weighting and being off topic (Start a new article on 'Moriori Renaissance') Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Roger 8 Roger what you call the “new version” (“an interesting academic exercise” or whatever) are irrelevant; the facts of the language’s status as a continuation of the old, or as new language are for academic debate. The inclusion of material here which has been described in reliable sources as written in Moriori is not something you get to dispute based solely your own personal beliefs. The RSs describe clearly people “hoping” and “attempting” to revitalise the language, and the article reflects that. The revival (attempt) is something that should be covered here as an ongoing event. I have no doubt that professional linguistic scholars will pay attention and weigh in when the picture is clearer. Until then, we do not simply remove reference to what is ongoing with the language now.

And I am—here, and in general—opposed to starting a new page, when the discussion of “modern Moriori” or a “Moriori Renaissance” fits perfectly well here. We can always split sections off later if necessary. — HTGS (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chastaurima: Why don't you use source 3 by Rhys Richards to construct a lengthy, meaningful and relevant addition to this article? It is more relevant to this article than what the trust tried to do last week. You will not risk creating a not-correctly-weighted article and you will show yourself to be totally neutral, and not adding sources that your trust has created or has used to confirm what the trust wants to do to fulfil its mission of promoting Moriori. There is a lot that can be done to make this article better and bring it up to an encyclopedic standard. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Alphabet incomplete

The current alphabet published in the article is incomplete. It currently has the following: a, e, i, o, u, ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, p, t, k, m, n, ng, wh, h, w, r.

What also needs to be included is: v, tch, ch, g

This is supported by the main sources (Deighton, Shand, Baucke, and Tapu) for traditional Moriori (however, "v" is only shown by Shand, and not the other 3 sources):

Deighton, S. (1889). A Moriori vocabulary.

Shand, A. (1894). The Moriori people of the Chatham Islands: Their traditions and history. The Journal of the Polynesian Society

Skinner, H. D., & Baucke, W. (1923). The Morioris (Vol. 9, No. 5). The Museum.

Tapu, H. (1862) Petition George Grey Chastaurima (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chastaurima If you’re comfortable, I see no issue in you making those edits yourself. I think it’s probably worth actually stating outright in the article that only Shand records the ‘v’ though.

Beyond this, as I think you were getting at with other edits, I see no reason that “Alphabet” is necessarily the most suitable long-term title for that section. Phonetics are a useful addition. Other languages are far more likely to use sections like “Phonology”, so it may be that the Alphabet section should become a subsection of a new section, or just replaced; see Sowa language § Phonology for an example of an extinct language, or Malay language § Phonology, for a far more mature article.

If you have access to the sources, and want to make changes, please be bold. If you want to reference works put out by the trust, I would personally recommend reading WP:SELFCITE and advise caution, but as is apparent, others may take a more hardline approach, so requesting edits in those cases might be more sensible (shrug). If you find yourself needing to request edits here on the talk, consider using {{Text diff}} (like {{Text diff|Old text.|New text.}}), and I or others should be able to make changes for you quickly. — HTGS (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a little gun-shy about making significant edits, based on failed earlier attempts, and not being fully aware of how wikipedia works, and the level of scholarship required. But I will take a more cautious approach and look at some conservative contributions that are well supported by the research. I have added some of the missing pieces to the alphabet and added my sources. Chastaurima (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Understandable. Slow and steady is a very workable process too. Note that the wiki-style stuff isn’t too important, and there are plenty of editors around—including myself—who will make the little gnome-like edits after you if they notice minor style errors, as Alexeyevitch did in a followup edit here. The page is in a weak shape, so anyone with some expertise and the right books should be very welcome here. — HTGS (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)