Talk:Blackfoot language

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Endangered languages (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Endangered languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languagesTemplate:WikiProject Endangered languagesEndangered languages articles Languages Low‑importance This article 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Montana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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): Tnicoleb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sharon1013, Sbelyk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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): DanniiYarbro. Peer reviewers: Mnransdellgreen, Grovercleveland17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in adding subsections on inflection of intransitive verbs and noun number to the Morphology and syntax section. Here are my proposed edits:

Nouns are inflected with suffixes to be singular or plural, depending on their grammatical gender classifications (animate or inanimate).^[1]

	Singular	Plural
Animate	-wa	-iksi
Inanimate	-yi	-istsi

Intransitive verbs in Blackfoot are inflected with prefixes and/or suffixes to distinguish person.

Two first-person plurals exist in Blackfoot: ‘we’ including the addressee, and ‘we’ excluding the addressee (i.e. “us and you” and “us but not you”)

Blackfoot distinguishes between second-person plural and singular.

	Singular	Plural
1st (inclusive)	nit-	-'pa
1st (exclusive)		-nit-...-hpinaːn
2nd	kit-	kit-...-hpoaːwa
3rd	-wa	kit-...-yaːwa

Drjudgy (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I display the characters for ᓱᖽᐧᖿ?

ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It displays them just fine for me. It must be that my browser is set up to read the glyphs in the UCAS UniCode range, as I have fonts in that range. CJLippert (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, what did you not understand about the pronunciation indications I added? Hyacinth (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, [ts] does not occur in the word 'snake' and is not the sound a snake makes and [ts:] does not occur in the word 'eagle' and is not the sound an eagle makes. If you want to bring some wording onto this page for discussion, then do so and we will make better wording, but IPA stands for International Phonetic Alphabet and THAT tells us how it is pronounced, not some animal noise which changes from language to language. Look at other language articles--none of them (or virtually none of them) have "pronunciation aids" to "clarify" the International Phonetic Alphabet. That's the point of the IPA, you don't NEED "clarification" with it. (Taivo (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is this article intended only for linguists? Is this article restricted to providing information only from the perspective of linguistics? Hyacinth (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia practice to present all pronunciation in the International Phonetic Alphabet. The IPA is 100% clear in what it means. Even non-linguistic articles use the IPA for pronunciation (see the article on "Chaps", for example). Even in this case, the symbol [ts] is crystal clear even if one does not specifically know the IPA--a "t" followed by an "s". If you are concerned about "nonlinguists", then are you also going to explain "typologically polysynthetic"? It seems that needs more nonlinguistic explanation than [ts]. (Taivo (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Are we sure we want the geminates listed as separate phonemes in the table? Typically phonological inventories in published studies don't do this. Also, some theories posit that short and long stops are not separate phonemes in the same sense as, e.g., /p/ and /t/ are separate phonemes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDillinger43 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues: do we want to include common phonological changes in Blackfoot? I would be glad to supplement the current information with material from Frantz (1991), but first I wanted to make sure people wouldn't view it as unnecessary clutter.JohnDillinger43 03:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDillinger43 (talk • contribs)

A huge rewrite of this article was just posted by a nonlinguist whose POV is clearly nonlinguistic and ill-informed. If you have things to contribute to a positive discussion of issues in this article, then discuss them here, but unreferenced and inaccurate linguistic statements will be reverted. (Taivo (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call it unreferenced ill-informed statements, since if you bothered to read the editor's rewrite, most of the information had been cited, and included information on phonology, morphology, syntax; information that's not very detailed on the present-state article. I can't say anything for the history/ecology sections, since I decided they were too long to read for me, but the biggest problems I could see were a) the removal of all of the current article's information, format, and sources; b) the suspicious addition of large amounts of text; and c) the lack of formatting. If those issues can be addressed, along with confirmation that the information is not copied and not copyrighted from somewhere else, then it's workable. - Io Katai (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad when good information must be deleted along with questionable. I agree that it is suspicious when so much of the original text is removed, especially text that was properly referenced and non-controversial. Especially problematic was the new author's assertion that Blackfoot was somehow not universally accepted as a member of the universally accepted Algic (Algonkian-Wiyot-Yurok) language family. The "controversy" over Algic's genetic status was resolved over 50 years ago and there is no longer any controversy concerning it among linguists. The "reference" that the new author used to imply that Algic was controversial is 100% supportive of the Algic family as a valid genetic unit. Lyle Campbell is one of the most conservative Americanists when it comes to linking languages together into language families and he finds nothing whatsoever controversial about Algic. (Taivo (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'd like to see some information about Blackfoot syllable structure added to the "Sounds" section (which I think should be retitled "Phonology" and expanded significantly). However, I'm pretty much the only one who's published on the issue, so I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to post a bunch of information and cite my own work. I'd appreciate some input, and if anyone wants to take on the task, my M.A. thesis would probably be a good source to cite for syllable structure information: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~rdenzerk/The%20Distribution%20of%20s%20in%20Blackfoot.pdf. It contains some more controversial proposals, but also a lot of basic information that I think would be appropriate to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDillinger43 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this sentence refers to other linguists disputing him. It's not Greek. He's a linguist. Edit as appropriate, but don't delete because of your personal belief that he was not a linguist. Cite published sources. 69.226.102.187 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rude comments aside, the only thing that is relevant here on the BLACKFOOT page is a reference to Whorf's calling Blackfoot oligosynthetic. Place that here and put the rest in the article on Whorf. (Taivo (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

To reiterate. It doesn't matter if you are an IP or Whorf worshiper. The only thing that is relevant to this article is the Blackfoot language. Put the reference to where Whorf called Blackfoot oligosynthetic and a reference to someone who rejected it. Doesn't matter whether Whorf was an anthropologist or a linguist or a shoe salesman, he published the comment and that's the only thing about it that is relevant here. (Taivo (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've been very clear on what to put here for a good article. Whorf's personal history is irrelevant to the article, a reference to where he called Blackfoot oligosynthetic is relevant. (Taivo (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Notice that no other individual researcher on this page has their personal history splashed on the page. Compare this with other language articles and you will also see that the personal histories of the scholars are very rarely listed. Whorf's life isn't relevant here. (Taivo (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Personal histories of scholars where they disagree prominently enough to warrant a mention in an article on a topic matter.

69.226.102.187 (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMHO a quick mention of who Whorf was is not "irrelevant." Part of what constitutes a reliable source is the credibility of the author. This is why what Labov says about AAVE is more relevant than what Cosby says. That said, we can reasonably shorten it to "a specialist in Native American languages" without losing meaning.

The issue right now is that we've only got the beginning of what seems to be an interesting academic conversation about oligosynthetic languages. If we could add more from the people disagreeing ("later linguists" is a bit weasely) as well as evidence from either side, we'd get some good stuff for both this article and for our Oligosynthetic language article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Whorf was a specialist on Native American languages, true, but not on Blackfoot. He was just peripherally interested in Blackfoot. His area of specialization was in the American Southwest and Mesoamerica. If this was an article on Hopi, then he was a major player. But this article doesn't even mention the main researcher who really is a specialist on Blackfoot--Donald Frantz. Why don't you talk about him in this article. Whorf's interest in Blackfoot was just in passing and he was never a specialist on the language or on any Algonquian language for that matter. He worked on an entirely different set of languages, so to feature him here is like featuring Henry Ford in a discussion of the airplane and not talking about the Wright Brothers. (Taivo (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's another issue we can address, then, with added material on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on your discussion page which says the same thing. I can only go by the guidelines in the article as it is now written. IP editors often meet with extreme hostility towards their edits on Wikipedia, as happened in this case. I thought it safe to go with the flow of the existing article and start there. I give you dudes your article back and apologize for stepping on fragile egos by not realizing how tender the ground underfoot was. 69.226.102.187 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Aeusoes, I asked the anonymous IP to reference Whorf's quote about oligosynthetic, but he hasn't. Yes, that reference would be relevant as well as a reference from the majority who oppose that point of view. I'm not a specialist in Algonquian, so I'm not as familiar with that literature (especially with discredited points of view in Algonquian). But as I mentioned, Whorf is an important person in a general discussion of Native American linguistics, but he is only a very peripheral part of the history of Blackfoot linguistics, and is certainly not a major player in that history. Uhlenbeck and Frantz are far more important figures in the study of this language. If anyone deserves special treatment in this article, it is them and not Whorf, who really just mentioned Blackfoot more or less in passing. (Taivo (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

IP, I have no problem with IP edits. What I have a problem with is that you were not reading my comments about which comments and references were relevant for this article and which were not. If you have a reference for the oligosynthetic comment then that should definitely be here. But the comment about Whorf when he only mentioned Blackfoot peripherally and then ignore Frantz and Uhlenbeck was inappropriate. (Taivo (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I did read your comments. Here is a link to them.[1]

Here is the quote from you, "Whorf wasn't a linguist, but an anthropologist in the last years of his life. Most of his linguistic research was done while he was a fire prevention engineer.)"

Please note that in your first hostile reversion you do not mention "oligosynthetic" at all. I referenced precisely what you commented upon. I even included the specific reference that discusses him being a fire prevention engineer. 69.226.102.187 (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on this Talk Page are very specifically about the relevance of Whorf's qualifications to the Blackfoot language. Whorf could have been a shoe salesman for all it matters because he was not a specialist on Blackfoot so his discredited comment about oligosynthetic requires no reference to his personal history. (Taivo (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just because someone is a specialist on one or more Native American languages does not make them a specialist on all Native American languages. Whorf was an expert on Hopi and several other languages of the American Southwest and Mesoamerica, not on any of the Algonquian languages or other language families of the Plains and Northwest. (Taivo (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I gotta say, Taivo, you're coming off pretty bitey here. You're basically arguing that we shouldn't give a few words more about Whorf because not enough is given about Frantz. I get what you're saying regarding his specific qualifications regarding Blackfoot, but if his claim is worthy enough to include here, then it's not too troublesome in the early editing stages of incorportating this debate to mention that he's a linguist.

We could even say "Benjamin Whorf, a specialist in Native American languages, suggested that Blackfoot might be an oligosynthetic language, though later linguists, such as Donald Frantz, have discredited this hypothesis." I can think of better ways to word this that incorporate sourcing, but this seems good enough for now. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence really doesn't hinge on Whorf other than the fact that he said Blackfoot was oligosynthetic. Read other language articles that have similar statements and you will see things such as "Y calls X language a Z while A calls Y language a B". Unless the personal qualifications hinge on something like "A, B, and C call D language an E, while F, widely considered to be the foremost specialist on D, calls it a G". Here the weight of F as the foremost specialist is important in balancing the apparent weight of A, B, and C. With the Whorf statement, since he was not a specialist on Blackfoot, there is no weight to be placed on his side of the issue by a personal comment about him. Even your "compromise" sentence, Aeusoes, puts too much weight on Whorf. It implies that because he was a specialist in Native American languages he was somehow specially qualified to comment on Blackfoot. He wasn't. He was a specialist in Uto-Aztecan (and neighboring) languages which are as different from Algonquian languages typologically as English is from Dravidian. The wikilink to his name should be more than sufficient in this article. Indeed, Donald Frantz is the acknowledged authority on Blackfoot, but he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page devoted to him. Putting Whorf's wikilinked name in the same sentence with Frantz's unlinked name already implies some special status for Whorf without adding to the impression by putting irrelevant qualifications behind his name here. Sure, in the article on Hopi praise his work, but not here in Blackfoot. (Taivo (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

How about something like this: "It has been suggested that Blackfoot might be an oligosynthetic language(Whorf reference), though later linguists have rejected this hypothesis (other reference)." I don't think the individual scholars working in the field need to be mentioned here, just their ideas. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that at all. I don't even have a problem with "Whorf suggested that X", but I do oppose any further emphasis on Whorf himself. (Taivo (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Kraftlos's suggestion is pretty close to what I was thinking as an alternative that incorporates sourcing. But do we have a source where Whorf makes that assertion? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement has been there a long time, I think (since before the current "in-line referencing" cult was born). I don't know the Blackfoot literature well enough to know where it came from. (Taivo (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"In line referencing cult?" I think this page would be more useful if it were about the article, rather than an opportunistic outlet for continuing to throw potshots (please look up the word, Taivo) at me.

However, I will explain myself once more, in response to this latest cheap shot, to see if the focus of the page can be redirected to the article.

I repeat what I have said above and on Taivo's discussion page. I included the in-line references about Whorf, because Taivo deleted them, according to his words, due to his claim that Whorf is not a linguist. Whorf is a linguist. And, I could only go by the what Taivo claimed were his original reasons for deleting my edit of this article, that Taivo doubted Whorf was a linguist-see article history and my link above to Taivo's original deletion of my edit. I was surprised to find Taivo claiming to be a linguist, and arguing Whorf is not one, so I included sufficient inline references to satisfy a self-proclaimed academic and self-proclaimed possessor of an IQ of 165 that Whorf was considered by many linguists, in print, to be a linguist. If this had been an edit by a writer who simply questioned that Whorf was a linguist, one source might have done. However, it was not an edit by just any editor, but an edit by someone who claimed to be a linguist, and others, I assumed, might be more inclined to support removing my edit, because Taivo claims to be a linguist.

Again, I repeat my comments that the sentence hinges upon Whorf, as it makes his comment primary, and the disagreement secondary. While I might disagree with the emphasis of the sentence I was warned about deleting things from Wikipedia, because editors tend to be very possessive about their articles. I thought a clarification directed to the primary focus of the sentence would help before expanding the sentence and the idea from current and past research by specialists in the area. I was instead told, by Taivo, to focus on Whorf not being a linguist. This became the new focus of editing. This new focus is directed by an established editor who says he is a linguist.

Now, it is clear that Taivo is not willing to move on to discussing the article, unless this includes allowing him to continue with the cheap shots at me. I thought with a new day moving forward on the article might be possible, and I could contribute details to an interesting area of the article rather than being forced to defend myself personally even more than I already have had to do.

Usually encyclopedia articles are written by authors with not just knowledge but with keen interest in a topic. I consider the Blackfoot language to be far more interesting than I am. This is not the case for other authors whose editing privileges trump mine, and I cannot change that. I apologize for editing and for adding references to Wikipedia and have learned my place. --69.226.102.187 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, it's best that you move forward than fixate on any perceived slights directed at you. I think it's clear that you've convinced him Whorf was a linguist. Do you know where it was that Whorf made this claim? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, since you're new to Wikipedia, I will ignore your personal attacks or your defensiveness. My comment about "in-line referencing" cult was not about you at all. In the "old days" when I started editing Wikipedia, in-line references were not required for every statement of fact. Aeusoes understood that reference was to the historical direction of Wikipedia, not about you. The sentence isn't about Whorf, it's about "oligosynthetic" applied to Blackfoot and the conclusion by the real Blackfoot specialists that it does not apply. Whorf's qualifications as a specialist in the Uto-Aztecan languages of the Southwestern U.S. does not give him special status here. Do you have the reference to his claim that Blackfoot was oligosynthetic? (Taivo (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Someone with a little more time may wish to do this. Djembayz (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page was recently moved from Blackfoot language to Siksiká. It may be appropriate to use the indigenous name rather than the English colonialist one. I take no strong position on that, though I imagine some editors do. However, Siksika (without diacritic) currently redirects to Siksika Nation, a specific first-nation community in Canada. There is a link to "Blackfoot language" (which redirects to this article) in the text, but no hatnote or other aid to people who may be looking specifically for the language.

The titles Blackfoot people and Blackfoot Confederacy both redirect to Niitsítapi, the broader ethnic/national group.

Usual Wikipedia practice is to have two titles with names such as French people and French language, or Igbo people and Igbo language. If that solution is not appropriate for these entities, then some combination of redirects, hatnotes, and other disambiguation should be worked out so that readers can find the appropriate articles with a minimum of difficulty. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three branches of the Blackfeet nation, not just Siksika. Need to move the language back. Montanabw^(talk) 08:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored all the moves to their original locations, further moves needs to be discussed. Montanabw^(talk) 08:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys notice Iron Confederacy move?--Moxy (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Montanabw^(talk) 02:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the language of Chief Napi? הראש (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to advocate for anything except consistency.

There are language naming inconsistencies between this article, categories, templates and MediaWiki:

• Wikipedia has the article Blackfoot language (with redirects from Blackfoot (language), ISO 639:bla, Siksika language, Siksiká, and Siksiká ᓱᖽᐧᖿ). There has been previous discussion regarding the article name; see (see Talk:Blackfoot language § Page name.
  • categorized in Category:Blackfoot culture
• the en.wiki article identifies an ISO 639-3 language code: bla in the info box
  • ISO 639-2 bla refers to the language name 'Siksika' (the English name) and 'blackfoot' (lower case; the French name)
  • ISO 639-3 bla refers to the language name 'Siksika'
  • IANA language-subtag-registry file bla refers to the language name 'Siksika'
• MediaWiki language support returns the name 'Siksika'
  • {{#language:bla|en}} → Siksiká
• templates:
  • {{bla icon}} → (in Blackfoot) (deprecated; to be replaced with {{in lang|bla}} – see TfD)

    categorizes to Category:Articles with Blackfoot-language external links – calls {{Link language|bla|cat-lang=Blackfoot}}

  • {{link language|bla}} → (in Blackfoot)

    categorizes to Category:Articles with Siksika-language external links

  • {{in lang|bla}} → (in Blackfoot) (replaces {{bla icon}})

    categorizes to Category:Articles with Siksika-language sources (bla)

  • {{lang|bla|text}} → text (has a tool tip that reads: 'Siksika language text')

    categorizes to Category:Articles containing Siksika-language text

  • {{lang-bla|text}} → Blackfoot: text

    categorizes to Category:Articles containing Siksika-language text

  • the cs1|2 template suite using |language=bla, |language=Siksika, or |language=Blackfoot:
    • {{cite book |title=Title |language=bla}} → Title (in Blackfoot).

      categorized in Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2)

    • {{cite book |title=Title |language=Siksika}} → Title (in Siksika).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

      categorized in Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2)

    • {{cite book |title=Title |language=Blackfoot}} → Title (in Blackfoot).

      categorized in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language

Of the above, we can do nothing about MediaWiki. For the others, we can standardize on one of 'Siksika' or 'Blackfoot' and modify the templates, categories, and article as necessary.

• {{bla icon}}, {{link language}}, {{in lang}}, {{lang}}, and {{lang-bla}} all rely on Module:Lang
  • if 'Siksika' is the preferred language name, no action is required
  • if 'Blackfoot' is the preferred language name, Module:lang/data is modified to override IANA / ISO 639 code-to-name definitions
• the cs1|2 template suite relies on the MediaWiki language name table. However, cs1|2 is capable of overriding MediaWiki code-to-name definitions
  • if 'Siksika' is the preferred language name, no action is required
  • if 'Blackfoot' is the preferred language name, Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration is modified to override the MediaWiki code-to-name definition

Consistency matters. Article name should match category names should match template renderings. So the question is:

• which language name: 'Siksika' or 'Blackfoot'?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak preference for Blackfoot since that seems to be more inclusive towards the non Siksika tribes speaking this language. Since it's difficult to know if they're refering to the first nation or the language it's dificult to know what's the more common name, but while looking there seemed to be a preference for Blackfoot. --Trialpears (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A month on, and there having been no further comment:

Blackfoot is the chosen name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-Blackfoot-specialist but apt reader of linguistic texts, I suspect certain distinct parts may need improving.

1. in the Word order section: are independent noun phrases or rather independent pronouns typically dropped (prodrop) due to the extensive person inflection?
2. ibidem: would the sentence "There is an ordering restriction if the Distinct Third Person (DTP) attached pronoun /-aawa/ is used in which the subject independent noun phrase must occur before the verb." be (grammatically) improved without changing its intended meaning if it were changed to: "If the Distinct Third Person (DTP) attached pronoun /-aawa/ is used, there is an ordering restriction by which the subject independent noun phrase must occur before the verb."?; at first reading, the wording and structure of the original sentence made me wonder whether the occurrence of the independent noun phrase would be inside the attached pronoun.

Hello fellow Wikipedians!

I'm going to be working on this article as part of a course I'm taking on endangered Indigenous languages. I'm going to mostly be working in the revitalization efforts section. Please feel free to keep an eye on my edits and leave any comments or concerns should they arise! Sbelyk (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endangerment status is reported inconsistently in this article. The UNESCO source currently says "Definitely Endangered", but the article has "Severely Endangered" and a couple of other descriptions in various places.

I don't know if these are due to talking about different contexts, or because Blackfoot has become less endangered over the past few years.

I'll try to resolve these questions in the next two weeks, before I make any edits. If anyone else has insight or suggestions, please pitch in!

TimothyMills (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the UNESCO info for Siksika just now: current status is "Definitely endangered".

TimothyMills (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in section 1, paragraph 4 says "severely endangered". The corresponding link (reference 12) is broken. I think the text should be changed to "definitely endangered", and the reference changed to the one I linked a moment ago: https://en.wal.unesco.org/search?keys=siksika

TimothyMills (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this edit in the article. TimothyMills (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Vitality" section, "According to the UNESCO Factor 1: Intergenerational Transmission, Blackfoot is classified under severely endangered." This suggests a subsidiary criterion. So maybe its endangered status is different depending on what factor you examine, and only when taken together do they add up to the above "Definitely endangered" status. The link there (reference 49) is broken, but I'll see if I can fix it, and identify whether that source supports the claim.

TimothyMills (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference linked in the Vitality section is Arienne M. Dwyer's chapter "Tools and techniques for endangered-language assessment and revitalization", in the book Minority Language in Today's Global Society (pages 201-226). I'm able to view it in Google Books. The relevant content is on page 204. But that isn't what we want for a Wikipedia reference. That reference describes factors in evaluating endangerment, but does not give information about Blackfoot. For the claim on this page to be valid, it would need to be connected to a source that identifies Blackfoot as being "used mostly by the grandparental generation and up".

TimothyMills (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link by removing a "." at the end, and the original reference was fixed. On reflection, it looks like this reference is sound - the status for this particular criterion is not the same as the status of the language overall (considering all criteria). TimothyMills (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only other apparent inconsistency that I find is at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the article, where it says "Blackfoot language has been declining in the number of native speakers and is classified as either a threatened or endangered language." The source cited here does back up that description. I think adding "... depending on the source" at the end of that sentence would work, because the link is to an aggregation site that lists various different assessments of the Blackfoot language. This extra wording would, I think, make it clear that this statement doesn't actually contradict the statement about the UNESCO rating two paragraphs down.

I'm making that edit now, because I feel that it is a minor clarification rather than a substantial edit or reframing of content.

TimothyMills (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyMills محمد 196.150.140.114 (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2022 and 31 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmawiddifield (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Emmawiddifield (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does the history section seem more like a history of the Blackfoot people and less like a history of the Blackfoot language? —Kmsiever (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem valid. There is a lot of overlap between language, culture, and people, so I'd say this is better than nothing. Is there a good source out there for the history of the language?

TimothyMills (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]