Talk:Lencan languages

message: Does the reconstruction of Proto-Lencan really have ejectives, or are they glottalized phonemes? American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America lists p', t', c', and k', but as far as I can tell that book uses Americanist symbols, not IPA. 209.162.2.10 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proto-Lencan Ejectives?

message: I certainly don't want an edit war either, so I'll do my best to respond to Rsheptak's comments here, and explain my reasoning. My main concern here involves the subset of the NPOV policy, not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. In other words, as I interpret it, presenting every viewpoint on the classification of Lenca on completely equal footing would itself be POV. Because some classifications are more accepted than others by specialists. So I don't think it's POV to note that most linguists reject Greenberg's methods and his classifications of American languages, because those linguists' views are also relevant, and they provide a clearer picture of viewpoints on the classification of Lenca. That being said, I can definitely see how the wording I used in the present version of the article could be POV (oddly, the part that concerns me the most is that I used "but" after the mention of Greenberg's views). 
I don't see how saying that Campbell "disagrees" with Umaña's classification is POV, though. Though I suppose we could say something like "...(notably Chol and Yucatec). Lyle Campbell lists Lenca as unclassified" or "...Lyle Campbell, on the other hand, lists the language as unclassified".
Thoughts? --Miskwito 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Campbell, the first suggested wording is what I wrote, but either of the two are fine with me.  WRT Greenberg, we both agree that some, but not all, linguists disagree with his classification.  This however, is not about WP:UNDUE, giving undue weight to a minority opinion, but rather about the appropriateness of the inclusion of this information in an article about the Lenca language.  It adds nothing to the readers knowledge about Lenca.  It involves the reader in a debate that is peripheral to the subject of the article.  Rsheptak 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I still feel it's important, though, that readers are aware of the reception some of the various theories have had. Would it be any better to say something like "Joseph Greenberg, as part of his controversial classification of American Indian languages, classified Lenca as a Macro-Chibchan language. More recently, Constenla Umaña has also argued that Lenca ...[etc.]"? --Miskwito 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does add to the readers knowledge about Lenca to know its classificational situation - also which proposals are more trustworthy than others. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miskwito, I would agree to your new Greenberg language.  Maunus, the article, as originally rewritten, made it clear that the classification of Lenca was disputed. I'm no proponent of Greenberg, but I think you enter a slippery slope if you start using arguments like "trustworthyness" in this forum.  In a scholarly paper, sure, but Wikipedia has proved over and over again its not scholarly.  Anyhow, I think Miswito's proposed solution is fine. Rsheptak 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a really bad argument Rsheptak - since it basically means that because something in wikipedia is crap it doesn't matter if everything is. Given the fact that mainstream linguistics fairly unanimously reject grenbergs classification it is simply not fair to mention without also mentioning that it is not accepted by the linguistic community.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenberg, Lenca, and POV language

message: Check your facts because it is now know that Lenca is a Mayan language that should fall under Proto-Mayan. Please make the changes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.211.118 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenca is a Mayan Language

message: Am I wrong if I see a contradiction between the following two claims, both from the History section:
Lyle Campbell reported in the 1970s that he found only 1 speaker of the language in Chilanga, El Salvador, and none in Honduras.
The language is reportedly extinct, and was also spoken by the Lenca people of central Honduras. Due to persecution by the Honduran army in the 1980s and 1990s, who violently repressed them due to their fighting for a more equitable distribution of land and a fair agrarian reform, many chose not to speak it for a long time to avoid being easily identified by their persecutors.
Even though there was only one speaker to be found in the 1970s, the (non-existing) speakers chose not to speak the language due to persecution ten or twenty years later? Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section