Talk:Great Lakes Algonquian syllabics

message: In the published literature, the subject matter of this article is generally referred to as the "Great Lakes Algonquian Syllabary." Specifically, I am thinking of the 1996 article by Ives Goddard in the Papers of the Twenty-Seventh Algonquian Conference entitled "Writing and Reading in Mesquakie (Fox)", and in the article "Native Writing Systems" by Willard Walker in Vol. 17 of the Handbook of North American Indians, and other articles by Walker as well. If you are interested in this topic, BTW, Goddard's article is excellent and worth reading.
My proposal is consistent with the syllabary in question having (according to the evidence which I will adduce in an enhancement of the article) originated with Potawatomi, and spreading to Fox / Sauk / Kickapoo. Speakers of Siouan language Ho-Chunk (aka Winnebago) subsequently adopted and adapted the syllabary when they encountered Fox users of the syllabary.
If you have an opinion, please comment here. This change is minor, but it does make the title more accurate and meaningful relative to its subject matter, and would make Wikipedia seem more, well, "encyclopedic."
Thanks.  Jomeara421 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this article 

message: In preparation for an enhancement of the information in this article, the following items need to be clarified.
1. The second sentence includes Menominee as one of the languages whose speakers use the syllabary. All of the sources I have consulted make no mention of Menominee with respect to the syllabary. I would be surprised to learn that there is any documentation supporting this claim, but if there is it would be helpful if it can be provided.
2. The following sentence:
 
:"Consonantal letter element alone can represent consonant value alone or consonant value with an inherent <a>, thus making this syllabics system classified as an Abugida system."
Most information available on the syllabary in published sources does not support this assertion, and it definitely appears not to be true for Fox/Sauk/Kickapoo. This claim would need to be supported and argued for, particularly given the potential complexity of the issue, and the interest in determining how particular writing systems should be classified on e.g. the discussion page for Canadian Aboriginal syllabics.
3. If there is documentation of an actual Unicode decision to exclude the syllabary, or a general policy that would lead to its exclusion, citable information would be useful.
Thank you. John.   Jomeara421 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On 3., I think it is an UniCode Consortium policy. I'll see if I could find their policy language that makes this system fail their checks, thus excluding this system. CJLippert (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items Requiring Clarification 

message: Further components that can be expanded.
1. Likely French origin of orthography, including use of materials oriented to syllables in primers, etc;
2. More detailed discussion of representation of consonant clusters, sequences with one or more consonants plus <w>, etc;
3. Verbal descriptions of distinctive characters, including contemporary modifications in direction of English;
4. Inclusion of reproduction of characters - Jones 1906 is now out of copyright and perhaps could be used;
5. Improved description of Winnebago syllabary, including how consonant clusters are handled;
6. Discussion of reading in syllabary (Goddard 1996 discusses this, based upon field research in 1990s);
7. Discussion of syllabic nature of system (e.g. practice involving recitation of syllabary rows, etc).
John Jomeara421 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to this Article 

message: The link for "Potawatomi Syllabics" in the "External links" section is broken:
http://www.potawatomilang.org/Reference/Grammar/Orthography/writingsyst.html
It looks as if the domain name registration has expired. If there is a new location for this material (I've never seen it) it would be good to have an update.
Thanks.  John  Jomeara421 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented-out the dead link on the article for now. Will look to see if a different link could be provided. CJLippert (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a live link, but I did see that the Internet Archives page have retained the January 10, 2006, version of that page. I will un-comment-out that link and replace it with the archived URL, but the archived URL will need to be replaced with a live link. CJLippert (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link