Talk:Tongva language

message: I reverted the addition of Tongva to the extinct languages category. Inasmuch as Tongva descendents speak it, I think it is a little early to call it extinct. If the category were "Languages that are not passed on as birth languages", I'd agree.--Curtis Clark 05:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not extinct 

message: I read your article. 
*Azusa= from the word -shuuk 'Ashuuksanga= his grandmother
I noticed this word root 'nga' meaning 'his/her' right?
If Ashuuk 'Grandmother' and 'nga' 'her' is it right?'
Similar to Inuktitut a.k.a Eskimo-Aleut languages.
Example:
Anaanatsianga meaning 'Her/his grandmother' Anaanatsiaq 'Grandmother' and -nga 'His/her'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqqalikitaaq (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, -nga is a locative suffix in many (all?) Takic languages, meaning "the place of", "at", "on", "by" , etc. I don't know Tongva grammar, but in the related Cahuilla language, the pronoun affixes (subject, object, and possessor) are all prefixes. I would guess that 'a- is "his/her". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar?

message: This edit removed some material. I don't disagree that, as written, the material was a bit "fluffy", but I'd argue that at least some of it is encyclopedic, and that references exist.
The first statement removed was  The whole revitalization vs. extinction issue is a can of worms, but "breath of Life" exists, deals with the Tongva language, and is arguably involved with revitalization.
Also removed was  Some of this seems to be sourced from this. I think this is a reliable source with respect to whether the activities exist. If there are no objections, I plan to add back information that can be sourced (probably in a section "Revitalization".--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added 3 inline cites and a section header, "Language revitalization" to the material that was already there. In the spirit of "don't bite the newbies" I've also left a nice Native American basket on the new editor's talk page. Djembayz (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: The second paragraph of the present version includes the sentence:
: The last fluent native speakers of Tongva lived in the early 20th century, but no evidence to this time and date can prove a fluent speaker in the last 150 years.
By my accounting, the early 20th century is not yet 150 years in the past, so this sentence is self-contradictory.  Either there were fluent speakers in the early 20th century, or there have not been fluent speakers for the last 150 years (putting us in the mid 19th century), but not both.  Which part is true? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are claims of fluent speakers into the 20th C (even unto the 1970s), but iirc the last documented fluent speakers were in the previous century. A lot depends on the definition of "fluent"; Merriam's informant obviously knew a lot of the language, but might not have been fluent.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the last documented fluency was in the 19th century, then claims of fluency in the 20th century must be undocumented, and therefore of no interest to Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better approach is "fluent speakers are documented from 18__, but Merriam's informant, while not documented as fluent, had a large enough vocabulary to be of interest," the latter point being well-documented by Merriam.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification