Category talk:Indigenous languages of the Americas

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas

Languages

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage

from [Category talk:Native American languages]

CFD Discussion

This category was listed for deletion on March 9, 2005. Consensus was to Keep.

This category is redundant. Languages are already classified by genetic affiliation (e.g. Navajo language belongs to Category:Southern Athabaskan languages which belongs to Category:Athabaskan languages which belongs to Category:Na-Den languages which belongs to Category:Languages) and by region (e.g. Navajo language belongs to Category:Languages of North America which belongs to Category:Languages by country (which itself should be renamed to Category:Languages by continent or Category:Languages by region) which belongs to Category:Languages). There's also considerable inconsistency in membership: Category:Southern Athabaskan languages, Category:Athabaskan languages and Category:Na-Dené languages all belong to both Category:Native American languages and to Category:Languages, while Category:Algic languages belongs only to Category:Native American languages. I would say only Category:Na-Dené languages and Category:Algic languages should belong to Category:Languages, which should really be only a category of subcategories (separate language families) as much as possible. --Angr 10:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 3 weeks — borderline consensus to Keep => move to resolved

1 Delete: Node
3 Keep: Ceyockey, Thryduulf, MadreBurro

Comment Would this category be okay if it were more consistently applied? As a layperson who is interested in languages but completely unfamiliar with the family groupings (and therefore unable to effectively use them), I find it very helpful. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep. The multi-axial classification proposed by Ish ishwar sounds reasonable. Courtland 23:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Well, there are articles for Native American languages and Native American, and the languages article has a top level genetic classification but not a complete languages list. However, it would be useful to have a simple list of Native American languages with their "full path" through the classification scheme, such as Angr outlined above; such could be a subpage of the languages article, for instance. Courtland 00:10, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
Comment. I dont know about deletion. It is true that there is a Native American languages article that has the top level genetic groupings. But so do other specific language family articles, such as Algic languages. Here is what I think that we need if we want to be perfect:
- a genetic classification
- an areal classification
  1. by continent
  2. by country (?)
  3. by cultural area (which overlaps country & continent boundaries)

by culture/history (which would give us our Native American grouping)

I think we need a "Native American" group somewhere because many laypersons dont even know that Native Americans speak many different unrelated languages. They are just grouped all together into a kind of non-Euro-American American category. Of course we need the genetic and areal groupings because they are the standard way to classify languages. So, I think we could classify Klallam as (1) Salishan language family (2) North American (3) USA (4) Northwest Coastal (5) Native American. This would be a lot of work, esp. since most Nat. Amer. langs do not even have an article. - Ish ishwar 23:47, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

We could do that. Each language could have three nestings tracing it back to Category:Languages, thus for example:

--Angr 07:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rework as per Angr. Thryduulf 08:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and group like Angr says. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What about Category:Native Asian languages or Category:Native European languages? --Node 05:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas (division into geo-cultural areas)

South American culture areas

hi. does anyone know what is the received list of culture areas in South America (assuming there is one)? I know there is that multivolume handbook from the 1950s (which I havent looked at), but I was wondering if anyone had read anything more recent. The only thing I have looked up so far is the 12 "geolinguistic regions" of Terrence Kaufman (1990, 1994), which he says are based on genetic linguistic, typological linguistic, cultural, and geographical features. I am using Kaufman's list in Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas (which you can see there). Any other competing culture area lists?

(by the way, little has been mentioned of culture areas in North America. Mesoamerica does have related articles.). peace – ishwar (speak) 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Kaufman's "geolinguistic regions"

It would be useful to include an explanation of these "geolingustic regions", for example The Cone. What areas belong to the respective regions? -- Robert Weemeyer 05:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, so noted. i guess i will be the one to do this. i should write a page on this, shouldnt i. maps would also be very instructive...

thanks for the note/reminder. peace – ishwar (speak) 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, please consider Pacific Northwest Sprachbund, which needs a linguist to write it; I just know about it. As for geolinguistic regions, not sure what or where those are, but it sounds like it relates to discussions at Template talk:Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest/Template talk:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast (both re a merge proposal) and Template talk:Coast Salish and similar. We have a standard Coast/Interior division in these parts, and not just for native culture/history, but still culture/political regions spill not only across political boundaries and mountain ranges but also over linguistic boundaries. e.g. the Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en include an Athapaskan twin-half of a coastal-culture society and similarly the Tahltan are usually included in discussions of Coast cultures because of their links to the Tlingit and Nisga'a; and the Inland Tlinkit of BC and Yukon are located throughout an otherwise Athapaskan geolinguistic region. We've had a latter-day tendency to confuse langauge with nationalism/self-determination, which is why people of the same langauae were grouped together when thyey wern't politically connected...except as enemies. Anyway just a heads-up on these templates and discussion; maybe has nothing to do with "gelinguistic regions' but it sounds like it might....17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)