Talk:Rapa language

Peer Review

Untitled

I like your article and the way you organized it. Under Sounds and Phonology, I would suggest adding headings to your chart just to clarify what the different rows show. Also, The Language is a very broad term, maybe elaborate or choose a more specific heading? Other than that, just keep adding to your article and I really like your examples! SL98 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Andy,

For the classification section of your wikipedia article, you might want to expand on the information you already have. You could include things like the ancestry of the language. For example where the language originated from and some of the words that descended from its parent language. Also, just another edit you could make is explaining the phonology and sound of your language rather than making multiple charts. The charts, no doubt, are extremely helpful in understanding the language, but its probably better to paraphrase some of the explanations of your languages phonology. You could even include information about the Subject Verb Object phonology (SVO) like we learned in class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smwong2 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks we appreciate the constructive feedback will further elaborate on the phonology section by paraphrasing. For the history of the Rapa language we have listed limited information and will add on this point as well. Thank you.

There's a handful of grammatical errors, I took the liberty to fix the ones I could find, but do be careful moving forward. In sounds and phonology, you claim that "it makes sense that majority of common Reo Rapa words come from Tahitian". I don't think that sounds like it should belong in an encyclopedia as it could be misconstrued as original research. Perhaps change the wording to be "A majority of common Reo Rapa words come from Tahitian, the more dominant language of the two that make up Reo Rapa." Of course, a citation would help there as well. In Phonology of Old Rapa, you take an example from Mary Walworth to demonstrate the articulation of /k/ in a word but don't cite it. Also, who is Mary Walworth? The silence (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Without a doubt we have many grammatical errors, we as a group saw your contribution to our pages and were very happy with the changes you had made. Also statement you caught was indeed not a very neutral one and will be changed in the future as well as the citation for Mary Walworth.

Good start. Be mindful of spelling and grammar. Sections such as "The Language" definitely need expansion and elaboration. While it is important to cover a variety of aspects, a more in-depth coverage has greater value than many aspects that are not explained fully. Interesting history. Bradenms (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)bradenms

• Yes in the near future we are planning to consolidate and condense our sections into a more logical format. The bulk of our information just isn't where it should be. Thank you for your feedback.

Under sounds and phonology the first sentence is a bit repetitive. Maybe try re-wording the sentence. I found myself re-reading it a few times. Besides that and comment about depth, this article is sound.Aarden1011 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Aarden

• Thank you we will get to work on this as others have also mentioned this.

^ I agree with Braden, I also caught a few grammatical errors, so just be careful!! I know it's just a rough draft so we tend to be careless. I like that you guys have a lot of phrases but you can shorten it, it seems a little too excessive. Or if anything, maybe just condense it so it doesn't take up so much space. Also, REFERENCES! Just make sure you do em before it's due! I saw that in the 'Phonology of Rapa', it mentions Walworth but doesn't state who they are or where the information came from! Corinaquach (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• On the point of references we could do a better job and will as we are consolidating our sources with one another and should be able to provide much better references throughout the article. As for Mary Walworth we are considering putting some background info on her but not too much as to draw attention from our main topic, the Rapa language.

Starting the Classification section with "while" sounds strange. In fact, that first sentence may be better suited in the Sounds and Phonology section. I think the Life in Rapa Iti section is more for the Rapa Iti page than here. Also, I think the information in The Language section should be either in the classification or history. What do the percentages mean in the first table of Sounds and Phonology? There should be headers for that table. Possibly include a link for the pages of lenition and TAM. Clmn3 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the feedback Clmn3, there are many good points provided. We did have trouble evaluating what information should be provided within this language article, where is the line between Rapa Iti page and ours? or, Should we only consider Rapa Iti language without back knowledge on is sibling island, Rapa Nui? were a couple of the many questions we asked ourselves. But we shall further refine out article with consideration to your concerns. As for the table, it is most definitely in its draft stage with headers and condensed formatting on the way.

Good start guys! In my opinion, the Life in Rapa section is not very pertinent to the language page. Maybe some of the information can be applied to the opening section, so as to keep some interesting information on the page. There are sections of the page that have room to be added upon, which is good because we still have words to put on the page. I would expand on a few sections (Classification and Phonology) before we complete and submit the pages. Make sure to get all the references in as well! [[User:JeffBaumgardner]JeffBaumgardner]] (talk)

• Thanks Jeff, you aren't alone in your opinion regarding the "Life in Rapa" section and this is one of our more important issue to address. Consolidating information into more relevant sections is the upcoming process we are about to undergo for our article page. Unfortunately our draft isn't quite a complete one as it really just is a "Rough" draft to be honest.

The classification section should be edited as the distinctions between the dialects seems irrelevant here. The classification section that was already on my language's page cited Ethnologue and talked about its status regarding language endangerment, which is something that you guys can include. "The Language" section at the end is out of place and should be merged with either the classification section or the intro.

• There are certainly section header which aren't entirely useful or not filled with enough information but we are going to consolidate them as the drafting process continues. We have considered using the information provided by the Ethnologue and will most likely add a similar section on language development. Thank for you the useful feedback.

"Life in Rapa Iti" is irrelevant to the language itself since this page is not about the island of Rapa itself, unless you can use it to discuss which of the languages is spoken in different facets of their society (ex. churches, schools, in the home, and in the government).Kdlee2 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, we are considering if "Life in Rapa Iti" does truly have meaning within the context of our article.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasperIshi, Elemasa, Andyluu0127, Keleka11. Peer reviewers: The silence, JeffBaumgardner, Kdlee2, JIAFU, Zsf8, Clmn3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review (JF)

I like this article because it contains so much table which makes me easily understand the topic. For the source, I saw one of them comes from the UH Manoa library. It proves that you took time to research in the library. Here is some improvement for this article.

1. " The Language" section confuses me because I don't know it means the whole Rapa language or one specific language in Rapa language. And I don't see any connection between this section and Rapa language. It will be better if you add some words and sentences. 
2.  As I was reading "classification" section, I feel like it is talk about the phoneme rather than classification. In the right side of this section, I saw the chart of classification. Therefore, summaring that chart will be a good content for classification. 
3. You talked about different Rapa languages such as Old Rapa, Reo Rapa and so on. Are they sharing same grammar and sentence structure?JIAFU (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Your confusion regarding the clarity between Rapa Language, Old Rapa, and Reo Rapa are well thought and are questions we ourselves had to, and are still trying to address, because the origin and evolution of this language isn't as clear cut as we'd have hope. As for the clarification of sections, the ongoing process of drafting will certainly clear things up in the future. Thank you for the feedback.

---

1. Check for small grammatical errors/ punctuation errors (i.e. "While, New Rapa" in the intro; usage of the word "general"; "be Tahitian" i think "by" was supposed to be used there in the HIstory section)

2. Good use of citations :) Do you need to repeat the citation of the 3rd source in the beginning of the History section (not sure myself, just wanted to point it out just in case)

3. Good background on Tahiti/Tahitian influence on Rapa

4. Check number formatting, "2" vs "two"

5. A brief description/explanation could be beneficial in the Grammar section, for each bold point

6. "The Language" section could just be apart of the intro instead of being a standalone section

Zsf8 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• We do our best to avoid grammatical errors however we ourselves aren't the best, we would appreciate any and all insight you could provide us on this matter. We will look into the citing issue in the history section but are unclear of point #4, could you provide us more detail on that matter? We shall take the rest into heavy consideration when further revising our article, thank you for the feedback.

Sourcing

The sourcing is good, it just needs more sourcing outside of Mary Walworth. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Classification of Reo Rapa as a kind of mixed language

The article only describes Reo Rapa vaguely as a "mix" of Tahitian and Old Rapa. From Walworth 2017, especially chapter 3.2 and chapter 5, I'd describe Reo Rapa as a special type of mixed language (Walworth calls this type "shift-break language") similar to, for example, Media Lengua: most content words are from one language (Tahitian), but at least part of the grammatical morphemes (including many pronouns) from another (Old Rapa). As such, Reo Rapa is basically Old Rapa mostly relexified through Tahitian, like an extreme case of borrowing – as Walworth clarifies, Reo Rapa is definitely not a Tahitian dialect (with merely an Old Rapa substratum). However, due to the close relationship between Old Rapa and Tahitian, both being Central–Eastern Polynesian languages, the precise nature of the "mixing" becomes significantly obscured (as Walworth notes), as opposed to a case like Media Lengua, where it is plain obvious which language has contributed exactly what. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)