Talk:Australian Aboriginal languages

Adding more info
I will be adding more languages and creating new pages via links. Imperialguy Absence noticed: Can't find Ngunnawal / Gundungurra in the languages list. Possibly because ACT is absent from states list (sits on Ngunnawal land) but I don't have the background to confirm. Can someone with the right knowledge address this please SlinkySeahorse (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)SlinkySeahorse


 * The only language list on the page is of languages with speakers in the section "Living Aboriginal Languages", and as neither Ngunnawal nor Gundungurra have speakers they shouldn't be on that list. I was wondering if you meant List of Australian Aboriginal languages? But both languages are included there as well. Which list do you mean? Dougg (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't certain whether there were speakers, thanks for directing me to the list. Just did some further reading. Would be keen to find out a timeline so Ngunnawal / Gundungurra can be added to List of languages by time of extinction SlinkySeahorse (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)SlinkySeahorse


 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed that page before! Ngunnawal probably lost its last speakers in the first half of the 20th century, maybe the first couple of decades. This is evidenced by the fact that R.H. Mathews published a brief description in 1904 after working with speakers in the 1890s. I don't know when Gandangara would have lost its last speakers, but likely to have been a similar timeframe as Mathews & Everett published a description of the language from work also in the 1890s. Dougg (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Gunwinyguan spelling
The spelling Gunwiñguan is highly unusual. Australian language names are not transcribed with ñ, ny or ng in its place. Imperialguy


 * Should be ny. kwami

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Aboriginal languages. 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/20050709053041/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/pathways.asp to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/pathways.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

One root language
According to a recent report "all Indigenous languages descend from one common language". 14.2.224.5 (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC) – Nixinova ⟨  T  |  E  ⟩ 04:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also reported by BBC: "Researchers in Australia say they have traced the country's indigenous languages back to a single, common tongue. The languages are all derived from a mother tongue, known as Proto-Australian, that was spoken about 10,000 years ago, according to a new study. ... The research, published in the Diachronica linguistics journal, is the first to prove that all of those languages came from the same family, said linguists at the University of Newcastle, Australia and Western Sydney University."
 * I'd say it's too early to tell. Many times a theory comes up like this only for a reaction paper to be written a year or two latter contesting it. Still the results of the study should be added to all relative articles. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is not 'researchers', but two researchers in particular. And they make a strong claim but I don't think it can yet be considered 'proven'. Dougg (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Two reliable secondary sources (ABC, BBC) are treating the theory as fact, and so should we (unless/until someone produces research to the contrary). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * News sources can't be used to establish an academic theory as a fact. What we have is an hypothesis, not a fact, as the two authors would acknowledge because scholarship in such highly conjectural reconstruction accept as a constituent element of their work, that inferences and deductions which lead to an explanatory model are always provisory, for the simple reason that the past is past, and one cannot 'check back' or verify one's deductions against a reality that has expired, and only survives in bits and patches in linguistic data that, in the meantime (10,000 years) had itself undergone radical transformations.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but it's not for Wikipedia editors to evaluate the research (a primary source) either - that's what secondary sources such as news articles are for. Statements like "claim to have demonstrated" are contrary to WP:CLAIM; while one reference uses "claim", two others do not. Perhaps it would be better to reword our article to explicitly say that it's a hypothesis, rather than a claim (or a statement of fact), e.g. say something like "the study hypothesised that...", which (in the context of an academic theory) is accurate and neutral. And/or quote an appropriate part from the study that summarises in plain English what the authors are saying. I read the abstract, but don't understand it enough to reliably quote from it or accurately paraphrase it. The best I do would be "evaluating [the Porto-Australian] hypothesis ... we show that inheritance is favoured over chance and contact", but that's not plain English (and I'm not sure I understand it anyway). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just for the record, I didn't evaluate the primary research. I did read it, however, before looking at the newspaper accounts, which meant that I could see at sight that the lazy anonymous journalists behind two of the reports evidently hadn't read the paper, and knew nothing of the topic, with the unsigned BBC saying they had prove(n) something, 'that all of those languages came from the same family.' The ABC is more careful:'After decades of debate, Australian researchers say they have finally proven a theory that all Indigenous languages descend from one common language.' Why did I make that edit? Because the paper's language, not reflected in those two brief reader-friendly articles, everywhere states that they are proposing an hypothesis.
 * (1) 'We consider a remote relationship hypothesis, the Proto-Australian hypothesis we consider the alternative hypothesis  . . .we propose . ..'
 * (2)'remote transmission as a hypothesis for their relatedness is favoured over recent transmission.'
 * (3)'The alternative hypothesis, that the Yanyuwa prefix system involves elements inherited from PA, has not been examined.We evaluate these two hypotheses in §8, and we provide evidence that theinheritance hypothesis is better supported.'
 * (4)We propose that these proto-prefixes would have been vulnerable to initial dropping, even in cases where the rest of the lexicon in a language does not show effects of initial dropping. Synchronic and diachronic evidence from NPN languages supports this hypothesis.'
 * (5)'We propose that the Mawng adjectival niɲ- and the Umbugarla adjectival kiɲ  involve additional, outer prefixation of Masculine prefixes, as discussed in §7.1.For Mawng, evidence within the Iwaidjan family supports this hypothesis.'
 * (6) 'The evidence supports the hypothesis that any horizontal transmission of prefix paradigms would be a remote and not a recent phenomenon..'
 * (7)'Evidence potentially supporting the PA hypothesis is found in a range of domains, as summarized in Table 22.'
 * (8)'As discussed in §10, there is evidence from other grammatical and lexical domains which also appears to support the PA hypothesis.'
 * If you look at the scant mentions of it, being just out, then there is a divide between quotes having both authors say they have proven the hypothesis (very dangerous in this area of scholarship), and then admitting it jars with other ideas, and 'may' have been the case. I read a preprint version (before getting the Diachronics article) but can't find that early version linked now. By 'claim' I was not expressing skepticism: it's just that speculative reconstructions about linguistic events 12,000 (not 10,000) years ago are extremely dicey. It is a very good paper with an interesting argument, but we should not be using newspaper snippets of news just out, written by anonymous journos with no evident grasp of the topic, to suggest this is factual. It is, as you say, speculative and hypothetical.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Aboriginal languages" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aboriginal languages. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Australia
What is Australias language 2600:1004:A010:4980:556:5931:1A0F:3AD3 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Australia does not have an official language, although English is by far the most commonly spoken. See Languages of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)