Talk:Zapotec languages

message: I've added redirects to this article from all the iso639 Zapotec language names (with iso639-3 codes starting with "z" to be precise).  If anyone thinks this was a bad idea, please let me know.  Adding the redirects makes the corresponding codes in Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Articles by code blue links, rather than red. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from iso639 Zapotec language names 

message: Can anyone explain the difference between this article and Zapotecan languages?  To a non-specialist (me) they seem to be the same topic. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Zapotecan group includes Chatino and the Zapotec languages.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Zapotecan is a larger group that includes both Zapotec and Chatino.  (And within the "Zapotec" group there are many individual languages, so more precisely, the page should be "Zapotec langauges" because there is not just one Zapotec language. -Blillehaugen 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between this article and Zapotecan languages? 

message: I have problems with the following sentence:
Franciscan and/or Dominican friars published a vocabulary and grammar of Zapotec in the 16th century [Córdova 1578a, 1578b].
first of all, if we're talking about Cordova's grammar and vocab here, then it should say "Valley Zapotec" not "Zapotec".  But I didn't want to change that part of it because there is an additional problem-- Cordova isn't a "Franciscan and/or Dominican friars".  He must have belonged to some order, but I don't know what it was-- anyone know?  I think there is some colonial material from northern zapotec, but I'm not sure.
Blillehaugen (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cordova was a Dominican I believe, entering the order a little after he returned from the Coronado expedition.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cordova 

message: there is so much missing from the bibliography.  Is there any sense in splitting up the bibliography-- for example, it seems most important to list dictionaries and grammars.  should that be a separate section?
Blillehaugen (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think it would be useful to maintain a separate section, containing a (possibly annotated) listing of the key dictionaries, grammars, linguistic treatises &c for Zapotec. The article still of course needs a 'references' section, ie a listing containing the works actually consulted and cited for the creation of the article itself. A broader 'bibliography', in the sense of a compilation of works relevant to Zapotec (but which were not necessarily used to write the article) is also sometimes seen (in other articles) as a 'Further reading' section. There are a couple of ways it could all be organised. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice work on the bibliography, Blillehaugen! G.broadwell (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibliography 

message: I felt like the page needed at least one or two examples of Zapotec words/sentences -- the problem is that there are dozens of different languages.  I put two sentences in using the Zapotec language I know best, but I think there ought to be others listed as well.  (Maybe you can do this, Blillehaugen ?!)G.broadwell (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good job both of you. I would have suggested both my self. If you want inspiration on how to further expand the article you can become take a look at Mayan languages and some of the pages on on Nahuatl and its dialects such as Pipil language, Pipil language (typological overview) and Pipil grammar ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great examples, G.broadwell!  Looking at the Mayan languages page, it's clear we can add a lot more.  Maybe some topics we can address: alienable / inalienable possession, pied piping with inversion?, locatives?, classifiers?..  Blillehaugen (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zapotec grammar

message: We do not normally put ISO-codes into the text body, partly because of the Wikipedia policy on embedded lists, partly because they aren't notable as encyclopedic information but rather as a source, and because we prefer to use iso-codes with a link to the ethnologues pages on the langauge). We normally  prefer to put them in the infobox (see how this can be done in the Nahuatl article ), in a list on its own (see the List of Mayan languages) or in the references section with links to the ethnologue pages. My personal opinion is that it is enough with the two links to the ethnologue website that are found at the bottom of the page.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can but it'll be a huge box. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a List of Zapotec languages - where all the ISO-codes appear. It needs to be fixed up a little with speaker numbers (either from the Ethnologue or from more reliable sources) and better locations (right now I have just put Oaxaca - but my intention is putting the names of the communities or areas where they are spoken). The field that now says "own name" might be used for something else, maybe a bibliographic reference for studies of that particular language or something else entirely.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ISo-codes

message: I have a concern about a sentence in the Use section:
Other areas however, such as the Isthmus, proudly maintain their mother tongue.
By contrasting the previous areas where Zapotec is not spoken as widely, with Isthmus by saying that in the Isthmus they proudly maintain their language, I feel like it's saying that elsewhere they are not proud, or something.  Somehow this phrasing doesn't sit right with me.  I think it is fair to say something about the wide-spread use of Zapotec in the Isthmus, maybe specifically mentioning literacy in Zapotec, or something.  What do other people thing?  Should we rephrase this?  Blillehaugen (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it should be rephrased and sourced with a good reference or completely struck.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use Section

message: oops-- so sorry.  I was doing something and I notice later that I messed up the info box.  I don´t know how to fix it.  Can someone fix it?  Apologies!! --Blillehaugen (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, it's taken care of.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: info box

message: :People who learn Zapotec as a second language have difficulties with these tones; that they become very mixed up because they already have another tone for speaking that conflicts with the Zapotec tone they are attempting to incorporate into their speech.
Is this a general statement about the acquisition of tonal languages as second languages for the speaker of a non-tonal first language, or is it meant as statement about the acquisition of one of the Zapotec languages when one already speaks another language, because of tonal shifts between different Zapotec languages? Mr Kyoling (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonality