Talk:Chocho language

I've just found a page on the Croatian Wikipedia that seems to be more complete. I don't know the language, but I'd love it if someone who did gave a summary of the article or moved the information over.

Chocho on Wikipedija —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.

In the 16th century, the names "Chochon" or "Chuchon" were most common for this language. Later, it appears these were backformed to "Chocho". In the 20th century, an active group of Chocholteco intellectuals and cultural activists have encouraged the use of the names "Chocholteco" and "Ngiwa". The word "Chocholteco" is increasingly de rigeur. "Chochotec" strikes me as a typo, and should be changed as the Wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mwswanton (talk • contribs) 06:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

Chochotec is a variant of Chocholtec that is used in several publications and by the Ethnologue·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, change it. I wasn't very knowledgeable when I started the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have not seen the word “chochotec” used in any serious publication; none of the professional linguistic publications on the language use this term. On the FAMSI Bibliografia mesoamericana, “chochotec” produces zero hits (“chocholtec” also does not produce any hits). As far as I can tell “chochotec” is either an invention or a typo from Ethnologue. The Ethnologue entry also contains other erroneous data, such as the assertion that the language is spoken in Toxpalan. I’m not sure why Ethnologue trumps a half century of scholarly publications. In what publications have you seen the word “chochotec”?Mwswanton 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Mwswanton (talkReply

I have seen the word Chocho in many publications, Chochotec only in Ethnologue data but not Chocholtec. I propose a move to Chocho language - rather than any of the -tec versions. And i propose to put in a section on terminology in the article that both asserts where the different terms are used and that the preferred term bu the speakers themselves is ngigua. Presuming that you are Michael Swanton of Leiden university I would assume that you have acces to a lot of references about the different usages and that you are correct in the erroneous nature of the Ethnologue entry. As long as you provide any changes to the page with references you have free hands. I reverted the blanket changes to chocholtec pending discussion, but not because I am against it. Only I don't think we should use the gendered spanish ending in -teco/teca. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have filed a request for moving the page to Chocho language when the move is made I will change all instances of "Chochotec" to "Chocho". I hope this is acceptable.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Page moved, per request. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although the word ‘Chocho’ has been used in the linguistic and anthropological literature, it has been firmly and repeatedly rejected by the speakers themselves as antiquated and prone to be understood as pejorative. It is for this reason that the 1994 reform to the constitution of the state of Oaxaca refers to “chocholteco”, not “chocho”. By the same token, Escritores en Lenguas Indígenas, the largest civil association of this type in Mexico, has also included “chocholteco” in its proposal for a law of linguistic rights. This term has become, as I already mentioned, de rigeur in Mexico where it appears frequently in publications and the press. I would therefore strongly encourage replacing this term as the article title. The logical replacement would be “chocholteco language”. I am not sure I understand the desire to avoid the “gendered Spanish ending in –teco/teca”. Gender morphemes are found throughout Romance loanwords into English (cf. aficionado, albino, savant, lieutenant, bravo, soprano…). However, if this is a real problem, there is ample precedence for this suffix to be borrowed into English as –tec (Aztec, Mixtec, Cuitlatec…) to justify the form “chocholtec language”.Mwswanton 06:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per wikipedia naming policy the most commonly used name in english language publications trumps endonyms when these haven't yet gained a broad following. I propose the article stays at "Chocho" I would, however think that a discussion of the names, their usage and their connotations would be a good addition to the article. Can you provide a references to the decisions of the state of Oaxaca and escritores indigenas to use chocholteco? The reason that generede endings should be avoided in my opinion is because it makes it difficult for readers to search for languages without knowing whether to use -teca or -teco - a reader who searches for the wrong form may not find the language at all.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

glossing abbreviations need to either be explained or hyperlinked to the appropriate article. I didn't want to guess at them, since some are not transparent. I did, however, convert to the IPA, leaving the ogoneks to avoid problems with the tone diacritics. kwami (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply