User talk:A R King/private area/Pipil language (DRAFT)

This is a discussion page for the draft of a Wikipedia article I am currently preparing. To see my present progress on building the page in question, please click on the 'user page' tab above. You are welcome to make comments here on the discussion page. --A R King 11:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Starting a Pipil language page

Following our recent discussion, I am thinking about writing the Pipil/Nawat language page we talked about. I don't know if you can give me any (technical) tips about how to get going. I have looked around in the help pages of course, but there are still some doubts in my mind, as this is my first time.

One idea that I am considering is to start by copying another language article (perhaps one of yours), renaming it and using it as a sort of informal template. I could do that and then if I came up with more specific difficulties I could come back to you (or someone else, if you prefer) to see if you can help me out.

Since we have, for now, apparently agreed to disagree on the point of the name of the language, I suggest the following compromise, and I'd like to know whether you agree to it. Initially I will name the page 'Pipil language'. At the beginning of the article I would like to refer, briefly and objectively, to the fact that there is some disagreement about how the language should be referred to, and then state that in the rest of the article the language will often be referred to as Nawat. Within that context there should not be any ambiguity regarding what language we are talking about. It will be undersood that nothing (including the name of the page) is to be considered the 'last word' on this matter; I would just like to get the issue (temporarily at least) out of the way so as to get on with the 'real' work of developing a good article on the language. Does that sound okay to you?

As for the contents of the article, as I said before, my strongest area is the description of the language system itself, i.e. sounds, grammar, etc. Other questions I can also touch on are: present state of the language and its speakers, and official status (or rather non-status!); relationship (i.e. lack of, genetically) to other indigenous languages of El Salvador, with cross-references of course; language recovery initiatives; writing and alternative spelling systems; typological observations; lexicon; sample vocabulary items; existing written and audio corpus; some sample texts and recordings; sources and references.

I have deliberately omitted some aspects here, because I would prefer someone else to help out, both to involve more than one editor but also to lighten my work load if possible. Naturally any or all of the aforementioned areas are open to other contributions, but I particularly think that sections on the language's history, genetic affiliation, language status (is it a dialect of Nahuatl or a language in its own right?) etc. could perhaps be done by someone else.

Then there is another matter of concern to me. One is not allowed to cite one's own work, or refer to an organisation to which one belongs. But there are references to both my work and organisations to which I belong that would help to make the information in the article more complete. From what I have gathered, a possible solution here is for another editor to supply such information. So if this works the way I think it does, perhaps I could first give you the relevant references or materials to look at, and if, as co-editor of the page, you (genuinely) consider that their mention is worthwhile and justified, you could insert such references. I don't want you to interpret this as in any way pressuring you to 'find them worthwhile and justified' or to put them in, I would leave that up to your judgment entirely. I'm just looking for a way to give the reading public the best and fullest information we can. Is this the right way to go about this, or if not what do you suggest? --A R King 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)