Talk:Mohegan-Pequot language

Untitled

This article was based on the Malecite-Passamaquoddy language stub. (Taivo (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Splitting the Article

Ethnologue infamously linked Mohegan-Pequot and Narragansett into the awkward Mohegan-Montauk-Narragansett unit. These have now been split in ISO 639-3 into Mohegan-Pequot and Narragansett, each with their own identifiers. This article should now be split into two units along the lines of ISO 639-3. If someone has a few minutes to spare... (Taivo (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

I went ahead and finally created the Narragansett language page (only a stub, but oh well). This page obviously needs to be renamed/moved, though. Given that Ethnologue's new term is "Mohegan-Pequot language" (the same term is also used in many linguistic publications, and in the Handbook of Native Americans), I'd suggest that as the most logical new title for this article. --Miskwito (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Splits

Not sure how to address this, because as I talk to others and read, I get conflicting reports. I realise that I'm _just_ meant to deal with Language here, but Language and People are intertwined, and so I'm talking.

The Article mentions Stockbridge. I take this to mean Stockbridge Munsee. They are C Mohicans. Stuff I have heard or read from folks and sources I'd deem reliable:

Both the Stockbridge Munsee and Mohegan were rounded up and cohabitated in one location for a while SO unrelated blood wise, but eventually *were* related blood wise. (Prolly what I hear or see most often.)

The Stockbridge Munsee are not our relatives, not even a little. (This seems to be a very small group in terms of holding this view, but they're very vocal and present compelling arguments.)

Linguistically, sure, we are related, this is naturally an Algonquian dialogue. (Again, there seems to be a lot of agreement both in print and orally that this is how things are.)

To make this harder: Like the Onyota'aka, some of this Nation was forced to locate substantially West to Wisconsin.

http://www.mohican-nsn.gov/Departments/Tribal_Council/Committees_&_Boards/language-culture-committee.htm

http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/ICW-158.html

What to do, what to do? Should I just not worry and wait for a Stockbridge Munsee to answer this element? Abesottedphoenix (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

But wait, there's more!

I suspect I shall continue talking to myself. XD

It's been a very long time since Latin class. I'm conflicted, because I want to assert that Mohegan feels ergative to me. Benjamin Bruening makes a case for it here: web.mit.edu/pritty/www/ergativity/documents/bruening2007.pdf but he's referring to Algonkian; Passamaquoddy in particular.

What to do?Abesottedphoenix (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

First, this is an article about language, not culture or tribal affiliation. (I think that addresses your previous comment.) Second, this isn't the place for original research or interpolating information from one source about a different language here. If there is a reliable source that calls Mohegan-Pequot an ergative language, then that information can be incorporated here. If not, then it cannot be claimed here. All information here must be based on valid, published sources. --Taivo (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviate

I have found the obviate to mark the less salient noun in a sentence, not simply case marking as the current explanation suggests the obviate is simply a case marker. Is this correct?

Quoting https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Obviative,

"The obviate third person is a grammatical-person clusivity marking that distinguishes a non-salient (obviative) third-person referent from a more salient (proximate) third-person referent in a given discourse context."

Would it not be more accurate to replace,

"The obviative form is used when there are two or more animate third persons in a sentence. The obviative is used when a noun or pronoun is the object of the verb (the object is the obviate), or if the third person is possessed by another person."

with

The obviate form is used when there are two or more animate third person nouns in a sentence, to mark the noun which is less salient (less relevant to the discourse). The unmarked noun is called the proximate, which is more salient/relevant to the discourse. The obviate is also used to mark a third person possessed noun, with the possessor considered as the proximate, even if the possessed noun is more salient than its possessor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:C500:880:A972:D44:59DA:B1C7 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extraneous material

Much, if not almost all of the History section appears to be extraneous to the history of the language. It belongs in "tribal history". This material may be of interest, but it should be linked and not reproduced in excruciating detail here. Things like the historical connections with other Algonquin languages, compilations of dictionaries, "last native speaker" etc. should be focused on and not federal recognition gauntlets. --Bejnar (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove it. I wikilinked the tribes in the lead so people can find that info there.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)