Talk:Kiowa language/Archive 1

Comment
I've been listening to a Kiowa audio language course for several months now.

Let's just say I don't speak fluent Kiowa yet.

Gringo300 01:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Status
How many speakers? How many fluent? On TV about 10 years ago there was an old Kiowa man who was recording all the words of the language he could on index cards, many thousands. His own children apparently did not speak Kiowa and were not interested in learning. He has died and I think the program said he was the last fluent speaker. Information about current status and speakers of the language other than specifics of phonology would be great. Badagnani (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Marianne Mithun reported about 300 adults of varying degrees of fluency in 1999 (personal communication to her from Parker McKenzie). – ishwar  (speak)  22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So is it true that the gentleman featured on the TV news was indeed the last fluent individual? Badagnani (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I cant say. We would need to ask a specialist. The 1990 census reports 1,092, which is definitely too much.
 * What was the name of the TV program? – ishwar  (speak)  22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * brrruhgh? "Too much" for whom?  you?  In 1990 the number at a thousand would be 'bout right to this Kiowa man, bud.  Who are you, "ishwar", that you know how many speakers we still have?


 * I know only what Parker McKenzie reported (see above). It seems unlikely that the number rose from 300 to 1000 rapidly. – ishwar  (speak)  05:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I know only..." is a very narrow view of anything. It could be the assessment you 'only know' was a downward looking view of the ever diminishing condition of our language at that time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "We would need to ask a specialist.." is the telling quote that 'Xj' warns about. 'ishwar' doesn't say, "we need to ask other Kiowa people".  Does he know we still exist?  Would he not just be able to drive over to Anadarko, or Carnegie, or Hobart and just ask some Kiowa folks?  LOL.  "We would need to ask a specialist".   He's funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by "downward looking view". But to be clear (in case you are interested), here is my view. Given what we have seen and are seeing in indigenous language communities, Kiowa is definitely in danger of being lost to following generations of Kiowas (and to the world in general). However, it is not a certainty that the Kiowa language will be lost. It can definitely be continued into the future (as we have seen with the Hebrew example). It requires a lot work to work against the negative pressures that have caused the decline to start in the first place: grandparents need to speak to children, high schoolers should be able to get language credits for Kiowa classes, maybe start a Kiowa radio program, etc., etc. Hopefully, it wont be lost as communities losing their community speech is a tragedy.


 * By "specialist", I mean anyone who has knowledge of Kiowa speaker demographics. They could Kiowa or nonKiowa specialists. So, for example, native speaker Parker McKenzie would be a specialist since he worked on the language for much of his life and knew about who was speaking Kiowa. Not all Kiowas may know about language demographics, just like many (or most?) English speakers dont know about how many people speaking English. One person we could ask would be Parker McKenzie's great-grandson, Andrew McKenzie, who is also working on Kiowa (his school website: people.umass.edu/armckenz).


 * I know very well that Kiowas exist. I've been to both Anadarko & Carnegie and stopped by the Kiowa tribal center once (unfortunately it was closed, I was there for a Chiricahua dance). peace – ishwar  (speak)  19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ishwar - "By "specialist", I mean anyone who has knowledge of Kiowa speaker demographics"


 * So, the Kiowa folks don't know enough about "demographics" of our own language is what you are saying? It'd require someone not of the tribe to be considered an 'expert' in your view.  The defining knowledge of Kiowa is naught to do with the living members of the tribe, but is in the published articles and difinitions you read on dead ink and paper, is what you are saying?  I know you don't mean to be offense to the families of Kiowa folks who have many fluent speakers.  At least, I hope you don't mean to be offensive.  But, you are being offensive.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * hi. No, I'm not saying that & I cant get that interpretation from what I wrote. I explicitly mentioned Parker McKenzie as being an expert and he is a Kiowa — so he is an example of a "Kiowa folks" expert. A specialist is a specialist, their particular associations are not definitional. No offensive was intended. – ishwar  (speak)  17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your basis for argument is a quote of one person in a tribe numbering tens of thousands? Yet, you are not tring to be disrespecful... hmmm.   Maybe just being narrow?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was probably the NBC Nightly News or something similar. It was about a 4- or 5-minute segment about the guy. I asked N. Scott Momaday about the man a few years ago and he told me he had passed away. Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the status of our language, current as of my visit to the tribal headquarters in October 2007. The last fluent speaker is still alive and in his 90s, but he has Alzheimer's disease. A lot of the language has been recorded as oral history on tapes, but some of those original tapes were stolen by a individual from a university to transcribe and never returned. (Yes, it was not the best idea to send out originals with no copies.) It seems there is no one alive and in control of his faculties that knows the full language, but there is a small revival going on and classes are available which are taught be Alecia Gonzales, who has also written the only accessible Kiowa textbook for students. There is an Australian linguist who is probably the most fluent person in Kiowa living right now. There is a small amount of controversy about whether anyone is completely fluent in the language right now. There are some people who say they are fluent, but there are others who dispute that. Xj (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The University of Oklahoma in Norman and the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma in Chickasha both offer Kiowa language classes. Alecia Gonzales (Kiowa-Apache), who teaches at USAO, created a Kiowa teaching grammar called, Thaum khoiye tdoen gyah : beginning Kiowa language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyvsdi (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Intertribal Wordpath Society, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving native languages of Oklahoma, estimates the maximum number of fluent Kiowa speakers as of 2006 to be 400.Uyvsdi (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Uyvsdi.


 * I just Google'd "Intertribal Wordpath Society". Only found dead links. As illuminating as it must seem to have folks that are not Kiowa guess-timate how many speakers we still have, at least the U.S. census reflects the Kiowa folks own note of their own survey of our language speakers.  As of the year 2000, it reflects 1,000+.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.228.65 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I added an updated link to the IWS' site. Their estimate of speakers of Oklahoma languages can be found on this page: and is based on work with each of the tribes (the numbers come from tribal members). Both 2000 and 2006 estimates are listed, and real figures are probably smaller since every single year we lose more native speakers. The US Census is notoriously inaccurate when it comes to Native American populations. For instance, no less than 700,000 people claimed to be Cherokee in the 2000 Census. And there's always a wide range between being fluent, being conversant, and knowing a few phrases.

I mentioned the Kiowa language programs at OU and USAO so people would know who to contact if they want to study the language. The Kiowa Tribe doesn't mention a language program on their site, but if they have one, they should be listed as the "go to" people.Uyvsdi (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Yeah...your outside the tribe guess-timate of speakers in our tribe is always gonna be better than our own folks telling you how many speakers we have. Thank you for your invaluable input.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.53.84 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The estimate cited by the IWS is not mine; it does, however, agree with that of Parker McKenzie. And the IWS is not non-Kiowa. Jerry Bread serves on the board and Gus Palmer, Jr. has been involved with the organization as has Alecia Gonzales. Uyvsdi (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * I respect the names you invoke in your post. I still stand by my belief that our Kiowa families say of how many speakers they have is of more weight.


 * I'm sorry...who am I talking to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.240.202 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * btw..so you don't think I'm asking you to expose yourself on your own...I am Scott Zotigh. And, that is my name to use.  You use several folks names in your post and, it is impolite in our culture to use other people's name. I know you did not know that. No one asked you for names of people to back up your stand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.240.202 (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold those thoughts... Uyvsdi (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Should I obey that command, or just wonder why you feel you have the right to demand? I don't even know who you are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.189.118.24 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen several posts of folks making words as if they were spoken by Mr. Parker McKenzie about the condition of our Kiowa language. The 2000 census of Kiowa folks stating the number of speakers we have in our tribe is 1000+. Mr. McKenzie lived for over 100 years, from  1897 to 1999 (may he rest in peace)..which is before the 2000 census.   I am curious which "Mr. McKenzie" you folks are using to quote to tell the Kiowa people how many speakers our families have?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.52.140 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why 'Tanoan'?
Note from a Kiowa:

Many times I've read that our language is, 'Tanoan'. I took that as fact, since I read it. But, later in life I met many Pueblo folks who are said to have a 'Tanoan' language, and their words are not anything like our language. I also spoke to a friend south-ways who speaks Aztecan, which is also said to be a 'Tanoan' language. None of her words for any common thing even remotely resembled our language.

Then, there is the fact that the 'Tanoan' language speaking folks seem to be located in the south of the current U.S. and further into Mexico. Yet, our people (Kiowas) originated at our earliest understanding, near the Kootenay region of current British Columbia (Canada). Our custums are certainly northern plains. And, our living oral history within our own tribe is of our lands in the Black Hills in which the Lakota now reside.

How is our Kiowa language "Tanoan"? When we are not southern people in origin and none of our living language resembles in any way the existing 'Tanoan' languages?

Maybe 'cause we have some sounds that other languages have?

Like...in chinese many words end with 'ing' so, following the same premise, many words in english end with 'ing', too. English must therefore be an Asian dialect, eh?

LOL

Just kidding...but, still curious how Kiowa is classified as 'Tanoan'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.24.5 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * Actually, Kiowa is not Tanoan. Rather is a single of language on the Kiowa branch of the four-branch Kiowa-Tanoan family tree (the other branches are Tiwa, Tewa, and Towa (Jemez). The term Tanoan refers to the family members that are in the southwest. It was originally thought that the Tanoan was genetic branch but that is not the case today. So, currently, Tanoan is just a geographic subgrouping.


 * Kiowa is, of course, the language that is the most different from the other languages in the family. Researchers realized that the "Tanoan" languages were related over 100 years ago. The guess that Kiowa was also related to them started with John Peabody Harrington, and he and some others made some lists of words that could be related. But, it wasnt until Ken Hale demonstrated the relationship using the comparative method in 1967 that the linguist world was convinced. I've never looked at the details of his analysis before, so maybe I'll take this as an invitation to do so.


 * I'd have to read how the linguistic evidence is used to interpret the archeology and pre-history.


 * The comparative method, which is what linguists use demonstrate genealogical relationships between languages and language families, cannot show that English is related to Chinese (and it doesnt). And it can only go back about 7000 years (give or take a thousand years or so). So, even if English is really related to Chinese, it cant be demonstrated with the comparative method. And, of course, the ancestors of the Kiowas and Tanoan folks probably have been on the continent longer than 7000 years. Basically, the method compares similar words with similar meanings and looks for sound (i.e., consonants, vowels, tones) correspondences. Before you do that, you are supposed to eliminate all words that might be borrowed from each other or another language and "weird" words like bird names, baby words ("mama", "dada"), sound words ("pop!", "bow-wow"), etc. If correspondences are found, then rules are posited that predict the pattern in the correspondences. There are constraints on what type of rules are considered likely based upon what linguistics knows about how sounds change over time. A rule of this sort looks something like:


 * original consonant A stays A in language #1 but becomes a different consonant B when it occurs before the vowel C in language #2.


 * a real example:


 * all the words that start with a t in Navajo and Western Apache start with a k in Jicarilla Apache and Lipan Apache. So, Navajo tó and Western Apache tóó mean "water" with an initial t but Jicarilla and Lipan have kó as "water". And if we look up north at the Athabascan languages there the words for "water" also usually start with a t. And for various phonetic reasons (which I'm not mentioning) and a majority-wins principle, we say that the original sound was a t which changed into a k in Jicarilla & Lipan.


 * Aztecan-Tanoan is a hypothetical idea that hasnt convinced the general linguistic community yet. A lot of people find the idea intriguing and perhaps promising, but more research needs to be done before anyone can say if Uto-Aztecan languages are really related Kiowa-Tanoan languages. So, until then, it is best treated as an unproven hypothesis.


 * – ishwar  (speak)  03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Theres almost nothing in Wikipedia about Tanoan languages. I'm trying to remedy this a bit. In the meantime, here is a nice summary of research by Michael Foster from the Handbook of North American Indians (I'm omitting the reference info here):


 * "Tanoan was recognized as a family over 100 years ago, and Harrington recognized a tripartite division into Tiwa, Tewa, and "Towa" (Jemez) branches and also proposed the link with Kiowa.... As far remoter connections, the linking of Kiowa-Tanoan with Uto-Aztecan in the Aztec-Tanoan superstock has won at least qualified acceptance, although with Zuni usually omitted.


 * "Two contrasting models of relationship were proposed for Kiowa-Tanoan, and this tended to undercut the usefulness of linguistic findings for culture-historical inference. The first was a family-tree model, which used lexicostatistics to establish relative distances among the languages. It was claimed that Tiwa and Tewa were more closely related to each other than either was to Jemez, and that Kiowa was even more divergent. Later phonological and grammatical evidence tended to bear these conclusions out, although Jemez and Kiowa were said on these grounds to be equally divergent from Tiwa and Tewa. These studies announced widely divergent time-depth estimates for the family, ranging from 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1 for Proto-Kiowa-Tanoan, with similarly discrepant figures for later splits. The differences in dating present a significant problem, since the earlier figure places Proto-Kiowa-Tanoan well back in the Archaic period, while the later figure places it at the point where the agricultural traditions in the Southwest were beginning to emerge. Another review attributed a time-depth of 3000 years maximum to the family as a whole, and hence dates of about 500 B.C. for the Jemez split, A.D. 200 for the Tewa split, and A.D. 1400 for the separation of Northern and Southern Tiwa. These figures imply that Kiowa split from Tanoan before the emergence of agriculture in Basketmaker II times. The second model of Kiowa-Tanoan relationship, based on unpublished lexical, grammatical, and phonological evidence, rejects Tanoan as a subgroup and postulates four coequal branches for the family, which presumably underwent nearly simultaneous separation from the Proto-Kiowa-Tanoan base. No time-depth figure for the separation was provided. The two models are evidently irreconcilable and have different implications with regard to the movement of prehistoric Tanoans.


 * " Because of the location of the historic Tanoans, Tanoan is usually associated with the Anasazi tradition, although a similar claim has been made for Uto-Aztecan, Keresan, and Zuni. It has also been argued that Tanoan roots are to be found in the Mogollon tradition lying to the south. The agricultural Anasazi, whose culture spread through a large area surrounding the Four Corners after A.D. 1 and developed into one of the great Pueblo traditions until their centers were abandoned around A.D. 1300, shared a number of traits with the Mogollon people, but they also had many distinctive features. One suggestion is that Tanoan-speaking Anasazi originated in the San Juan valley, expanding into the Colorado River region. Assuming that Kiowa separated from Tanoan before A.D. 1, the Kiowas are less likely to have been an Anasazi group that reverted to an Archaic lifeway after migrating to the Plains than a group that never underwent the Anasazi transformation in the first place. In fact, Kiowa historic traditions tell of origins far to the north, at the headwaters of the Missouri River in western Montana, and of a migration to the southern Plains in the eighteenth century. The original Kiowa-Tanoan split could still have occurred in the south in pre-Anasazi times, with ancestral Kiowas moving first to the north and then returning to the southern Plains in historic times, although there is no archeological support for such a hypothesis, and the linguistic evidence is inconclusive."


 * Hope you enjoy – ishwar  (speak)  04:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that information ishwar. Dear 'Unsigned Kiowa person' (I wish you had a handle so I could address you properly my friend!), there are extensive cultural and historical connections between us and the Tanonan Puebloans. We traded extensively with Tewa speakers, trading meat for corn and beads for example, and the connection was so strong that you do find strong historical Kiowa influences among northern Tewa, such as their unique adoption of our braided hair styles, leggings and shirts. Our remembered oral history goes back far before the Dakotas, to Bear Butte, and before that to Yellowstone, which is just north of the Puebloan region. Think of our earliest origin stories, what would you say they are? Well they are Grandmother Spider and the Sacred Twins, I am sure you will agree. These are all Puebloan stories, and they go back even earlier than the Tanoan split, they are held by Uto-Aztecans as well. I will also caution you in advance that if you discuss these issues with the white man, they will question your academic credentials, declare that they know far more about indian matters than you ever could, and imply clearly through their arrogance that us simple red men are not qualified to remember our own histories. It is their loss. All my relations! Xj (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Tanoan? (cont.)
I must not have been signed in when I posted the, "Why Tanoan" entry.

I read and appreciate the comments by iswar. But, I still don't see how our language is "Tanoan".

Do you know of any Kiowa words that are in any way similar to another 'Tanoan' language?

Or, maybe, like when you hear Japanese being spoken today, many English words get thrown in their sentences...especially when talking about pop-culture or technology. Even though Japanese uses many English words today, their language is not related to English. Maybe these 'related' words they found to categorize our language as "Tanoan" were simply ones we picked up in dealings with other tribes.

Just looking for simple examples of common words that show a relation between our language and other "Tanoan" languages.

We do have a long relationship with the Puebloan folks, and I agree that the stories of the Zaiday-Tahlee are probably shared from their culture. But you can find such 'sacred twin' stories in almost all cultures. I just Google'd 'sacred twins' and saw some from India, Africa and Rome.

I'm just not sure that equates to us being the same language family.

Scott Zotigh

hmm.. Come to think of it...since our Zaiday-Tahlee is probably shared from those Pueblo folks...what is their word for 'half boys'? Is it similar in sound to 'Zaiday-Tahlee'?

Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've started to add information at Kiowa-Tanoan languages. It is, of course, unfinished, but there is some info there at least. There are consonant correspondences that have been worked out, and also Kiowa and the Tanoan languages both have certain consonant alternations that are considered too similar to be regarded as just a coincidental similarities. But, I havent added an explanation of the alternations yet (I also havent added info about these in individual languages at Kiowa phonology and Taos phonology). The words being compared are pretty basic words, so borrowing is probably unlikely (and I dont know about the historical contact between Kiowa and the others, so I cant comment further on this). Many of the English words borrowed into Japanese are noticeably not basic vocabulary (like handoru "steering wheel" < handle, doa "western style door" < door). I'm not aware that there are any published dictionaries of these languages, so I cant help you with a cognate for half boys (if there is a cognate), maybe I can find the word for boy in other the languages.... – ishwar  (speak)  21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow...that's a *lot* of words to say, "we don't know where the heck Kiowa came from.."
It'd prolly clear up a bit if you knew our custom of names after death.

I gather from your wall of words above that your efforts at classification can only make us the singular 'northern' branch of the Anasazi. heh. With no words to match any language. Yeah! 'Anasazi'! "That's the ticket! None of them are around to dispute our uber-clever classification, anyway!"

Therefore, this Kiowa 'linguist' classifies English as the only western branch of Chinese language, although it could also be a Japanese relative. Ohh!! Or, Korean!! Yeah! "Meeso horn.." uhm...that sounds like english. Yeah...could be Korean, too.

Things are slow in the "Near Dead Languages" department.

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; line-height: 1.1em;"

! rowspan="2" | Proto-Kiowa-Tanoan ! rowspan="2" | English ! rowspan="2" | German ! rowspan="2" | French ! rowspan="2" | Italian ! consonant !! environment !
 * + style="line-height: 1.5em;" | Linguistic 'Yummy' sounds
 * - style="font-size: x-small;"
 * || || {{IPA|oui, est mmmm|| {{IPA|si..mmmm}}
 * colspan="6" style="background-color: lightGrey;" |
 * }


 * it's just a quote from a book that summaries the research. You're right that "we don't know where the heck Kiowa came from", but people have had different ideas about where.


 * It's not my classification, but rather other folks. The evidence is presented in the writings of those folks. You can find a few words from Ken Hale's article at Kiowa-Tanoan_languages. The date evidence is, in part, from lexicostatistics which most linguists nowadays say resets upon invalid assumptions (so, in order words, it cant be trusted to give accurate dates). If you assume that lexicostatistics can give you valid dates, then you can speculate about the connection of these dates to the archaeological evidence.


 * I dont get a reading of Kiowa being a northern branch of Anasazi from Foster's quote.


 * I dont know how to interpret your other comments.


 * Generally one doesnt compare mmmmm sounds but rather more "wordish" words like "person", "water", "tree", etc. Me so horny is clearly English (it's from Full Metal Jacket, a Vietnamese woman says this to American soldiers). English isnt related to Chinese or Korean (neither is Kiowa) and I dont think that anyone has seriously proposed this.


 * You'll have to read the original works to know their arguments for relationships to Kiowa. Or wait until I or someone else has time to add them to wikipedia. – ishwar  (speak)  05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Expand your view. "Meeso" is not a quote from a movie.  The movie reflects the quote, it didn't create the quote.  Reality first.  Movies reflecting reality follow.  See?


 * And, our sarcastic Kiowa humour is clashing with your dry subject approach. hehe  Sorry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed a lot of "dont" for "don't" and "isnt" for "isn't"...is this a modern usage of English, or do you need to http://www.english-zone.com/verbs/can-cant.html ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As a side note...I've noticed that the only person *opinionating here as a real person is me. Scott Zotigh.  Might lend a bit more to the weight of your opinion if you posted as a real person, too.  Just saying.  :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 05:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

English is not Asian
Lemme put your words to work, by substituting "Kiowa" for "English"...

"Actually, English is not Asian. Rather is a single of language on the English branch of the four-branch English-Asian family tree (the other branches are Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (South)."

I simply changed your weird words to be my weird words. They are both weird.

You stating emphatically that Kiowa is *not* Tanoan, yet is part of some Tanoan tree is...weird.

Thanks for your input, annonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ishwar -"You'll have to read the original works to know their arguments for relationships to Kiowa"
 * LOL Are you saying that your entire 'learned' argument towards our language being 'Tanoan' is predicated on us reading other folks works to find the salient points you missed in your own argument?  hehe  You make me smile, Mr(s) annonymous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I guess I havent been clear. The term Tanoan has been used to refer to the language family of Tewa, Tiwa, and Towa. And, originally, Kiowa was thought to be unrelated. Later, after Ken Hale presented evidence that Kiowa is a part of the same family, the term Kiowa-Tanoan was created to refer to the language family of Tewa, Tiwa, Towa, and Kiowa. So, this Kiowa-Tanoan family is apparently the same as what you are calling Tanoan. The reason for using a new term Kiowa-Tanoan instead of simply Tanoan is that the Tanoan term has meant a different thing to some people. Some have considered the Kiowa-Tanoan family to have two branches: a Kiowa branch and a Tanoan branch. In this usage and definition of terms, Kiowa-Tanoan is the larger family while Tanoan is sub-family within Kiowa-Tanoan. (The other idea is that there is no internal subgrouping of languages, in which case we dont need to have a separate Tanoan term — we just use Kiowa-Tanoan.) The other usage of the term Tanoan is those languages that are Pueblo groups in the Southwest. So, since Kiowa is not a Pueblo group, the term Tanoan is not used to refer to Kiowa. When I wrote that "Actually, Kiowa is not Tanoan", I meant that Kiowa shouldnt be thought of as belonging to a subgrouping with another language (like the idea that Tanoan is subgroup of three languages), that is, there is no Kiowa-Tewa branch, no Kiowa-Tiwa branch, no Kiowa-Towa branch, no Kiowa-Tewa-Tiwa branch, etc. and there are only 4 branches with a single language on each branch.


 * LOL I dont mean to argue for one position or another. I mean that the argument for the relationship between Kiowa and the other languages is presented in a journal article by Ken Hale and that since a summarization of the evidence presented to support that argument does not appear here on wikipedia, then I must, in the meantime, refer you to that article until someone adds this information to wikipedia. The fact is that most of the language research on North American languages is not freely available on the internet — it lies in books and specialist journals. If you want to read the article, I can email it to you. I'm not presenting an original argument of my own. I'm not missing anything as the argument has already been presented and is published. Wikipedia, however, is missing the argument because apparently no one has been interested enough to add anything from the article before. – ishwar  (speak)  23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! the 'argument is published'.  Why didn't you say so before?  That *must* mean it's the correct one.  ::rolls eyes::  You're still funny. (That's now published, too.  So, it's now true, too.)   ROFLOL   How did "Ken Hale" show that Kiowa was Tanoan?  Could you site some examples of Kiowa language that match the other 'Tanoan' languages, please?  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did mention his article. And you can see most of the published work at Kiowa-Tanoan languages; the two important things by Hale are "Jemez and Kiowa correspondences in reference to Kiowa-Tanoan" and "Toward a reconstruction of Kiowa-Tanoan phonology". Did you ever get my email? I sent you an email via the wikipedia email function. Like I said above, I can email you the papers. There are in PDF format.


 * Publication doesnt lead to truth. The linguistic community will have to evaluate the claims of the publication and that will determine its validity at that point in time. And, of course, things change over time so the validity may be rejected at a later date. And other theories may replace earlier theories.


 * Hale showed the relationship by using the Comparative method (see the Application section of that article to see how it is done). He compared the first consonant of the languages in sets of words (cognate sets) that had the same meaning or similar meanings. Besides what is already listed at Kiowa-Tanoan languages, here are a few cognate sets involving Kiowa & Jemez from Hale's "Jemez and Kiowa correspondences in reference to Kiowa-Tanoan" article:


 * – ishwar  (speak)  18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - Is there a Swadesh list for these languages? I don't see all the basic words that usually appear in such lists, which are often used to conclusively prove genetic relationships between languages (as between Scottish Gaelic and Russian, which are geographically far from one another, yet are still part of the Indo-European language family). Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think there is a list consisting of only Swadesh items. You dont need a Swadesh list to do reconstruction — it's just a good place to start. As long as you can demonstrate systematic sound correspondences controlling for morphology, semantics, loanwords, bird names, baby words, onomatopoeia, and the many other things that lead to methodological errors, then you may form cognates from vocabulary from several different semantic fields. Although there is a tendency for "basic" vocabulary to resist being replaced by loanwords from other languages, basic vocabulary has been replaced in several languages. Also, the Swadesh is not universally "basic", Swadesh himself kept reducing the list from over 200 items to just 100 because he finding exceptions where the items werent "basic" for all language-cultures.


 * The list above is not the entire list from Hale's article. He has about 100 cognate sets and a little more data from Taos and Tewa. And, in his other article, he has further data. And there is work by other people who have some cognate sets (but maybe Hale has all of this in his articles or perhaps some of them are erroneous, I havent compared everyone's work). Many of Hale's cognate sets have items from the Swadesh list. – ishwar  (speak)  02:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but not using that most common criterion seems strange. One can hand-pick any two languages and find a great many coincidentally common (or very similar) syllables for the same concepts, at least a few dozen, even if the languages aren't related at all (or tens of thousands of years ago at least). Can we determine why he chose not to use the Swadesh list? Has no scholar done that for Kiowa and the other Tanoan languages? It's not making sense. Badagnani (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can find some similarities in any two languages, but it's very unlikely that it can be done for hundreds to thousands of words, which is why the comparative method generally works. Additionally, the comparative method does not concern itself with similarity but rather sound correspondences (and the corresponding sounds can be quite different). As I said above, you start with basic vocabulary to help control for false correspondences that result from borrowing. However, once you establish several correspondences, you cast your net wider and see if your tentative hypotheses about the correspondences is valid for a large number of words. When someone wants to make an argument for a correspondence, they use any data that is valid, so restricting the data to only basic vocabulary in the final stage is unhelpful. Hale and most historical linguists dont restrict themselves to basic vocabulary because the comparative method will determine what is valid for comparison. Restricting the data to only basic vocabulary was important for Swadesh because he wasnt using the comparative method.


 * At the risk of just repeating what I wrote above, basic vocabulary is not foolproof against borrowing: basic vocabulary can be replaced (and the idea that it can is what prompted Swadesh to create his lists and lexicostatistics). For example, face, mountain, river, round are basic English words that were borrowed. Ultimately, it is the comparative method itself that will lead to the discovery of sets of true cognates. The other problem is that there does not exist a basic vocabulary that is universal for all cultures. For example, Harry Hoijer long ago pointed out that about half of Swadesh's list cannot be matched to the Navajo language (e.g. this & that can be translated into about 5 different Navajo words, eat corresponds to 12 Navajo verbs, 4 words for good, etc.).


 * One of the particularily convincing pieces of evidence which I havent compiled from Hale yet is the alternation of initial consonants in verb stems. Kiowa and Tanoan have the same alternations in several cognate sets. For example, Taos has a p : m alternation while Kiowa has a p : b alternation which parallels the regular Taos p : Kiowa p and Taos m : Kiowa b correspondences in other nonverb words which do not have alternations. I'll need to look up an example of this.... – ishwar  (speak)  05:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

K equals K and S equals S
Wow... so, our Kiowa language is now "Towa"? Because some words start with the same sound? I wonder how many global languages are now related because their words start with similar sounds.

I can't read the goofy letters after the first letters you show. But, the goofy letters following the first letters seem to always be diferent from the goofy letters you show in our words. I'm no linguist. Just a curious Kiowa man. Could you spell examples out for common folk to read? Like, "pah-bi" = 'brother'. "Bay-saw" = 'sit down'. "Ay-bah" = 'bread'. "Tah-lee" = 'boy'. "Zame-kee" = you. ( hehe j/k (oh! maybe your knowledge of 'Tanoan' languages could tell you what I called you. Maybe. Maybe we aren't 'Tanoan' enough for that.) Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...pah-bi would be a bad example in modern times, due to the influence of Kiowa culture on modern pow-wows, many non-kiowas use our word 'pah-bi' for 'brother'. I guess if a linguist today were researching languages at some dance and heard 'pah-bi' spoken, they'd assume it was part of whatever tribe the speaker was from. We are all related. As the Lakota often say. I guess we are. All the way back to whatever ameoba we all came from. But, I'm still wondering what made us Kiowa be "Tanoan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious...does no other language in history share "alternation of initial consonants in verb stems"? If that is the 'conclusive' evidence the annonymous person of 'ishway' presents.

He(she) makes it sound like that is the convincing (annonymnous) argument.

How does one get a real 'linguist' to come into these threads and help sort things out. I'm obviously not a 'linguist'.

"Ishway" is posting a lot, but she doesn't seem to be a linguist, either. Still grateful to have her input, though.

Is there not a qualified linguist who would lay it out simple to the understanding of any Kiowa person and to the like of folks like 'ishway' at the same time?

Or, is that impossible?

Oh, God! And, please be it a person not hiding behind a cyber-mask. Reminds me of..."what's wrong? Are you terribly deformed behind that mask or are you a criminal".

LoL The folks hiding behind cyber-masks... they must be terribly deformed or criminals.

Is there not a real linguist who could jump in and help clarify the Kiowa as Tanoan issue?

Thanks,

Scott Zotigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotigh (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

can you tell me how to spell: Zame-thay, Ba-gaw, ennit (lol), ay (ayyyy), t'oma, and the word for salt? Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizbit (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Census figure for speakers
Please check this edit for veracity. Badagnani (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's from the U.S. Census.  http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.239.67 (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Un-masked
Prepared to show due respect and think better of you folks that are hiding behind cyber-masks. I know I'm wrong in some way. Just hoping you annonymous folks will help clarify the reason us Kiowa folks are Tanoan.

Kinda hard to put weight into your words when you yourselves feel you have to hide.



If you can, as real folks posting...how is Kiowa 'Tanoan'?

Thanks!

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.50.12 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)