Talk:Tongva language

Not extinct

I reverted the addition of Tongva to the extinct languages category. Inasmuch as Tongva descendents speak it, I think it is a little early to call it extinct. If the category were "Languages that are not passed on as birth languages", I'd agree.--Curtis Clark 05:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Black Bear

I struck:

(the black bear was not introduced into southern California until the 1930's)

until it has a reference. It's here waiting to go back into the article. John Elder 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You can put it back now, or better, remove the Tongva word, since it most likely means something else. --Curtis Clark 04:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/bear/population.html
• http://socalcampi3.web103.discountasp.net/fieldguide/mammal/californiablackbear.html
• http://www.ci.monrovia.ca.us/city_hall/public_works/canyon_park/black_bear.htm

In Wildlife of the Southern California Mountains, Harold DeLisle states that ursus americanus had become extinct by the early twentieth century. He confirms the re-introduction by the department of Fish and Game in the 1930s. I think this is a fascinating story, but don't you think it better belongs in the American Black Bear article? For historical reasons, I would object to removing the reference, even if it were wrong. Part of understanding the preservation of a language is understanding the sources ... complete with their failings. That's one reason I posted the numerous parallel sources - we can wonder how much is varying dialect, and how much was the misunderstanding of the sources. I plan on working with this further, adding some more words, and perhaps putting the word lists into table form. John Elder 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I will check with my colleague, the bear expert Glen Stewart, when he gets back from Africa.
2. I agree with most of what you say, but if in fact there were no black bears in southern California when Merriam compiled his list, the point is worth noting. If he actually showed his respondents a black bear (perhaps a skin), their reaction might have been along the lines of, "It looks like a bear, but it's black. Let's tell him it's a 'black' 'bear'." There's a tendency to take what non-Indian authors say at face value (as contrasted with simply reporting it accurately) which can end up being disrespectful of the respondents. I was involved in a discussion a while back about the Chumash word huču, which means "dog". The assertion had been made that it was a loan word from Spanish, from a colloquial Spanish word (that I have forgotten) that means "cur". I pointed out that the word in some supposedly related Yuman languages is hutt, but it is different in the geographically intervening Takic languages (including Tongva), and that this would suggest it is indigenous. But a shiny theory often blinds people to the evidence, which in this case was discounted.--Curtis Clark 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll see if the San Bernardino natural history museum can shed any light on this. If there were no black bears for the Tongva people to have a word for, then this raises a very interesting point, probably deserving either its own article or at least a major section in a pre-existing article. Any ideas about where? John Elder 09:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask Gerald Braden (if he still works there). He was Glen's graduate student. As for not having a word for something, and yet reporting one anyway, the kangaroo story turns out to be false, but I'm sure there are other examples.--Curtis Clark 14:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar?

I read your article.

• Azusa= from the word -shuuk 'Ashuuksanga= his grandmother

I noticed this word root 'nga' meaning 'his/her' right?

If Ashuuk 'Grandmother' and 'nga' 'her' is it right?'

Similar to Inuktitut a.k.a Eskimo-Aleut languages.

Example:

Anaanatsianga meaning 'Her/his grandmother' Anaanatsiaq 'Grandmother' and -nga 'His/her' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqqalikitaaq (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, -nga is a locative suffix in many (all?) Takic languages, meaning "the place of", "at", "on", "by" , etc. I don't know Tongva grammar, but in the related Cahuilla language, the pronoun affixes (subject, object, and possessor) are all prefixes. I would guess that 'a- is "his/her". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent removals

This edit removed some material. I don't disagree that, as written, the material was a bit "fluffy", but I'd argue that at least some of it is encyclopedic, and that references exist.

The first statement removed was It was considered to be extinct, but no longer due to revitalization programs developed by UCBerkeley - "Breath of Life". The whole revitalization vs. extinction issue is a can of worms, but "breath of Life" exists, deals with the Tongva language, and is arguably involved with revitalization.

Also removed was These notes are to go into large data base, and hopefully accessible to the public along with other California tribes, except for sacred materials. A Tongva member who belongs to Keepers of Indigenous Ways, host the ongoing classes for the language. The classes have been ongoing since 2004. The hope is to have full emersion someday. UCLA Linguistic Professor Pam Munro who has worked on the Tongva language off and on for over 30 years is the Mentor/teacher of the classes. She will be soon publishing a 26 lesson book and hopefully a "Tongva Dictionary." Keepers of Indigenous Ways is looking for linguist who might be able to help with development of our ongoing revitalization programs. Maps, CDs, videos, songs, games are an ongoing part of the revitalization process. Go to lulu.com for a phrase book. Some of this seems to be sourced from this. I think this is a reliable source with respect to whether the activities exist. If there are no objections, I plan to add back information that can be sourced (probably in a section "Revitalization".--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I added 3 inline cites and a section header, "Language revitalization" to the material that was already there. In the spirit of "don't bite the newbies" I've also left a nice Native American basket on the new editor's talk page. Djembayz (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

The second paragraph of the present version includes the sentence:

The last fluent native speakers of Tongva lived in the early 20th century, but no evidence to this time and date can prove a fluent speaker in the last 150 years.

By my accounting, the early 20th century is not yet 150 years in the past, so this sentence is self-contradictory. Either there were fluent speakers in the early 20th century, or there have not been fluent speakers for the last 150 years (putting us in the mid 19th century), but not both. Which part is true? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are claims of fluent speakers into the 20th C (even unto the 1970s), but iirc the last documented fluent speakers were in the previous century. A lot depends on the definition of "fluent"; Merriam's informant obviously knew a lot of the language, but might not have been fluent.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If the last documented fluency was in the 19th century, then claims of fluency in the 20th century must be undocumented, and therefore of no interest to Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a better approach is "fluent speakers are documented from 18__, but Merriam's informant, while not documented as fluent, had a large enough vocabulary to be of interest," the latter point being well-documented by Merriam.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)