Talk:Lakota language

message: I have deleted the following statement from the "Phrases" section:
"Hokahe!" is a phrase used by traditional Lakota people during battle. It means "let's go". Crazy Horse was known to use it to mean "charge!" It can be contracted to just "ho!". According to a Lakota Holy Man, Eagle Voice, as recounted by Nebraska poet John Neihardt, it is literally translated as "Hold fast. There is more!"Bobby Bridger: singer, songwriter, storyteller, artist, teacher
The New Lakota Dictionary gives two senses under the entry hókahé: 1) Welcome! exclamation for greeting a visitor; 2) exclamation for the start of a race or a joint effort.
It seems to me that the dictionary is a more reliable source than that given in the hokahe paragraph (Bobby Bridger).
If it was up to me I would delete the whole Phrases section unless it contains a list of phrases. Thiyopa (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the deletion of the phrases section.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hókahé 

message: The word orthography is defined as "A set of conventions for representing language in a written form" (O'Grady et al. 2001). Since the alphabet is the main convention used for writing Lakhota (others include things like writing from left to right, using punctuation, etc.), I think that Alphabet should be a sub-section of Orthography, rather than a section of Sound system with equal prominence. Cnilep (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Sioux_language#Writing_systems. Also, this is the Lakota language article, not the Dakota language article. You are referring to a Dakota dictionary. oncamera 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthography and Alphabet 

message: I downgraded the article from B to C because of insufficient sourcing. By that I mean that the number of inline citations is insufficient, generally there should be at least one citation per section/long paragraph to merit B-class. Also the better part of the citations are to Rood and Taylors rather basic sketch in HNIA - I am sure there are more comprehensive sources (including journal articles) that could benefit the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Considering that the Lakota language is endangered (average speaker age is 65), I think it would be helpful to mention any immersion programs (be they in schools, colleges or universities) that have been implemented to teach Lakota and Sioux youth their ancestral language so that it does not become lost. Ericster08 (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immersion programs? 

message: I recently rolled back a large series of edits that changed the orthography on this page from IPA to Standard Lakota Orthography. WP:MOSIPA calls for transcription using broad IPA, though I think Lakota words can be written in the SLO if that is the consensus among editors. (Even then, there should not be SLO renderings for example within IPA templates, though.)
In rolling back the edits I appear to have removed some valuable additions. I'm afraid I don't have time just now to evaluate each of the changes and figure out which ones were useful (I know, I know, I probably shouldn't have edited if I didn't have time to do a proper job). Unfortunately the IP editor who made those changes doesn't have a talk page. I invite others to evaluate the changes, and will try to get back to it in a week or so. Cnilep (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing my screw-up, and welcome! Your contributions here are most welcome. Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA versus Lakota Orthography 

message: This edit seems not quite appropriate to me. At least, it seems to go beyond what is claimed in the source it cites. Palmer suggests that the texts she collected use a variety of spelling conventions, including many that differ from what she calls "the 'correct' spelling". That is, Palmer puts "correct" in scare quotes. She does not say that this spelling is phonetic (all ways of writing Lakota that I have seen are at least phonographic in principle, meaning they attempt to represent the pronunciation of words), and although one might infer from her scare quotes that Palmer regards the variants as correct, she does not state so explicitly, nor does she claim that anyone else says so.
Furthermore, as I noted above, Palmer's book is not principally interested in the Lakota language but in the history recorded in Lakota/Dakota/Nakoda stories and myths. It is therefore not a very good source for assertions about orthography.
I am of the opinion that Maunus's 22 December version was good, and that Uyvsdi's 23 December edits are not a step forward and may actually introduce some errors or potential misunderstanding. Cnilep (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was User:Windhorsewoman who made the statement that many Native Lakota speakers don't embrace the formal orthography. I just found a published source that backed up her idea - and yes, the source does state that different spellings are regarded as correct. I'll look for more sources if you insist. Lakota is a living language and if some native speakers does embrace certain orthographies, I have no problem with that or expressing that sentiment. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the author quoted used a phonetic spelling that differed from the "accepted" spelling, then that spelling is preserved. If it is too different from the original, then the "correct" spelling or the English translation is embedded parenthetically in the text. (Palmer 2008, 2)
As I read it, Palmer states explicitly that many spellings exist, but only implies that she considers many variants correct. Other inferences are also possible. On the other hand, I was mistaken when I said she doesn't call them phonetic; she does. Again, though, this is her description of the texts she is quoting, not a general description of the state of Lakota orthography. Cnilep (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This is the passage I was citing, same page: "Historically most words in the written language have been spelled phonetically, which tends to be entirely dependent on the 'ear' of the listener. As a result, the read of historical texts finds that the Two-face Woman, Anog Ite (the g is pronounced as a soft 'k') of Walker's books is spelled Anukite elsewhere, and neither spelling can be considered incorrect. ...no one system has taken precedence over another, and there can be any number of written transcriptions of a single sound." Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthography again 

message: This article currently has a 'Notes' section, which includes a number of citations referencing the content. It also includes a 'References' section, which lists three more sources. The 'Further reading' section lists more publications that are not directly cited in the article.
This should be cleaned up, so that either the footnotes give the full reference (as is the case for most of them now) or the footnotes point to sources that are listed in a separate References section (as I think is the case only for Jessica Palmer's book). Templates such as  and  are available to help with this.
I usually prefer the simpler, footnotes-only style, but many good articles use citation footnotes plus a list of references; see for example Greenlandic language. In contrast, International Phonetic Alphabet uses what I'm calling "footnotes only"; its "Notes" section is for explanatory asides.
Before I proceed with any changes, though, I want to find out if other editors have a preference for one-part ("footnotes only") or two-part (footnotes plus reference list) citations. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lakota 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/20130518165344/http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/47231 to http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/47231
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) 03:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and others: <ŋ> was added to the list of "consonants [that] approximate their IPA values". But I thought <ŋ> is used to mark nasalization, not as a consonant as such. For example <kaŋsu'> is pronounced [kãsuʔ], not [kaŋsuʔ]. Am I mistaken? Cnilep (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ŋ 'approximate[s] IPA value'? 

message: These appearances sometimes make the Lakota sound slow and monotonic (kind of "Tarzan-speak"), or like each sentence has a legendary poetical wisdom. 192.116.89.165 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primitive appearances in popular culture 

message: The answer might be in the article, but tl;dr: Why do names are translated? It is unusual. 
Non of you call the Biblical Deborah "a bee", right? So why it is different with Tkhashungke Witko? 192.116.89.165 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Their Lakota/Dakota names were commonly translated into English when they were alive and creating the history we learn about now, but sometimes the common English translation they are known by is actually incorrect, so it's informative to include a better translation without changing the common English name they are known by. See Young Man Afraid of His Horses as an example. oncamera 01:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names translation