Talk:Mixtec languages

message: I am in the progress of translating this article from the spanish wikipedia. Over there it was featured article and it rather long.Maunus 07:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, very good. You could also considering nominating it for translation collaboration at WP:SPATRA, who helped out in the translation of the Mesoamerica article from its spanish wiki featured equivalent. But they only do an article at a time, and 'vote' on which one to do next from a pool of candidates, so it might take a while.--cjllw | TALK 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It had already been nominated. Lagringa 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation in Progress

message: This page should be divided, I believe, into two: one for Mixtec languages proper and one for Mixtecan languages. Or else the discussion needs to be tightened up considerably. And the linguistic variation within Mixtec languages proper is not well represented in the current article. Stevemarlett 11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think first steps should be taken to improve the present article. Perhaps with a thorough definition of the different levels of "mixtec" and "mixtecan". Then maybe make a separate Mixtec languages article. This article is not among our best ones, that is for sure. Anything you can do to improve it will be well received.Maunus 12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement suggestions of coverance of Mixtecan languages

message: Does anyone know how to edit the info box to let people know there are ISO 639 codes?--Tatapelu 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think all of those iso-codes should go in the infobox it will be a mile long.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  codes 

message: Expand upon tones. The word „interesting“ is a bit over-used. I’d agree that it’s interesting, but that’s not really lexical style. In-line references barely sufficient for B class, but a bit more references would be necessary for GA. In-line referencing should also be applied to grammar. Grammatical categories seem to be used a little uncautiously: it would have to be demonstrated, for instance, that the mere presence of some particle na constitutes a genuine “subjunctive mood” instead of just adding some modal meaning. This pertains mostly to the degree of grammaticalization. Far far too little syntax. On the plus side, the article contains a lot of info with useful and interlinearized examples that are easy to understand, and the info is fairly broad, though not complete. The sociolinguistic side is quite impressive, though info could be added even here, eg more on status. While I would hold that a C class rating is just possible, I think B class does more justice to the fine work done so far. (If you want to contact me, please give me a line on my talk page, as I don’t watch this language page.) G Purevdorj (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating for WP languages

message: A surprising lapse in the current version: when examples of "Mixtec" are given, no indication is included as to which variety of "Mixtec". This even though — as the article itself emphasizes — Mixtecan languages number over two dozen, and even though the reference list includes works encompassing at least five different varieties. It would be nice if the various previous editors would remedy these omissions. Dale Chock (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions of source dialect identifications with examples 

message: I amended a footnote in the lead because it contradicted recent scholarship and it was on its face overstated. An aside: I fixed the misterminology of "the Mixtecan family of the Otomanguean family"; it's the Mixtecan branch. Moving on. Mixtecan branch has three constituents: Triqui, Cuicatec, and Mixtec. Whether to group the latter two together is an in fact open question. See Macaulay 1996 — a source already used by previous editors. Pp. 4, 6: 
"Assuming, then that Mixtecan consists of [M, C, and T], . . . Josserand (1983) summarizes the arguments which had been made for and against various internal classifications in Mixtecan . . . and points out that most of them have been based on glottochronological analysis, a technique which is of course largely discredited now. She argues . . . 'To date no one has presented an ordered set of innovations which would . . . reveal the internal classification . . .' She therefore concurs with Longacre (1957) and Rensch (1976) . . . . Because Kaufman (1983) and (1988) are works which provide the kinds of analyses that Josserand calls for, I have adopted essentially his classification of Mixtecan here . . . . [but] the internal subgrouping of [M] should still be regarded as an open question." [boldface added by me]
Thus we see that the sweeping conclusion of the old footnote, that Longacre (1962) made "convincing arguments" against any subgrouping, is baseless. First, he did not prove the negative, he only said that colleagues had failed to prove the positive (that is, if Macaulay's account is indeed correct). Second, it does not take into account the research done by Kaufman two decades later. I did some searching through Ling and Lang. Behav. Abstracts and through Google Scholar and I conclude that Kaufman's research is STILL unpublished a generation later. A mystery, yes, but he has shown his manuscripts to a few Mixtecanists, like Macaulay. Dale Chock (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategorization of the Mixtecan branch of Otomanguean 

message: Which true?
*Mixtec people page: The Mixtec  
*Mixtec language page: The Mixtec  (with ref.)
--Kmoksy (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED has the latter.  Actually, it's probably often /ˈmɪkstɛk/. — kwami (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I work with Mixtec speakers regularly and I’ve never heard anyone pronounce the name of the language or people with ʃ — most everyone uses /s/ when speaking Spanish. (The endonyms for the language are, of course, another story.) Indeed, only a few Mixtec variants allow ʃ as a coda consonant. This is probably derived from the Nahuatl pronunciation (I’m not sure, but I believe the Nahuatl word for ‘cloud’ is something like /miʃ/. Many linguists, however, use ʃ. This is probably an academic hypercorrection. I believe this should be corrected, but unfortunately I don’t have a citation at the moment. babbage (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that misteko or miksteko are the more common pronunciations in Spanish. But we are supposed to give th English pronunciation no?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: It is true that in Nahuatl the pronunciation is "meeshtekah", but yes the most common pronunciation in Spanish today is probably misteko.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meeshtek or Meestek ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mixtec language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910162601/http://virtual.utm.mx/mixteca/ to http://virtual.utm.mx/mixteca
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201201515/http://aulex.ohui.net/es-mix/ to http://aulex.ohui.net/es-mix/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505205552/http://cdi.gob.mx/difusion/librostexto/4457_ok.pdf to http://cdi.gob.mx/difusion/librostexto/4457_ok.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522083137/http://es.tradupedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa:Recursos_en_Idiomas_Ind%C3%ADgenas_de_M%C3%A9xico to http://es.tradupedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa:Recursos_en_Idiomas_Ind%C3%ADgenas_de_M%C3%A9xico
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I'm looking at a couple of lines with error messages.
CNTF:Counter-factual mood
 
Both of these were converted into interlinear recently, but the text itself was imported into here directly from es:Lenguas mixtecas in 2007. I think the first one is an easy fix -- it should be shall-enrich-he. But the second one I think might be just wrong; there's no indication in the Mixtec of the CNTF at the end. I've not the foggiest notion how to go about verifying any of this, since there's no source in the eswiki article. (This all came about because I'd looked at a list of Quechua noun declensions and started browsing other New World languages in general hoping to find interesting stuff.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible wrong lines picked up from Spanish article 

message: The text makes it clear that there is no accepted standard variety and that the varieties are so different as to be mutually incomprehensible, yet in much of the grammar section (starting from the verbs), it is not specified which variety is being described. Also, it isn't very good that the phonology described is of one variety and the grammar is of another - in that way, it's hard to know how to read the grammatical examples. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Which'' 'Mixtec'?