Talk:Maricopa language

Information and references unclear
The number of native speakers on the page is 100, but when looking at the Ethnologue website, couldn't the number also be 160. I am confused on how it is known which number to use. http://www.ethnologue.com/language/mrc

I also found this part unclear: "depends not on some theory but on the shared verbal habits of the people employing the relevant conceptualization. Accordingly, it is not valid to say that speakers of Maricopa are lacking the lexeme and. Rather, it is speakers of, for example, English who would experience the lack." I do not understand the idea that is trying to be conveyed and when I tried reading the reference, the link took me to the same wikipedia page. I would have to read the resource in order to try and make this sentence more clear.

It would also be a good idea to provide links to the two papers that make up the majority of the information on the page. Banaya29 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, right now the page says '...it is not valid to say that speakers of Maricopa lacklack the lexeme and. Rather, it is speakers of, for example, English who would experience the lack."

I think that's very cool, the reduplication of the English verb there, "lacklack". We should keep that! Not just in the article, but in the English language.

I understand what it is that someone is trying to say here, so I'll translate (from English to English). Whoever wrote that is saying that a language is under no obligation to have a word for "and", or "thank you", or any other particular thing that English-speaking linguists and anthropologists, or Spanish speaking conquistadors, expect, even if it's found in all other known languages, even (especially) if our theory says that the language SHOULD have that word The argument is that it's only a "lack", or "lacklack", if the native speakers of the language experience a lack, which of course they don't, or they would have already made something up. It is only those English-speaking linguists, social workers, or whoever, that experience the "lack(lack)" of a direct equivalent to the English word "and", when they're trying to speak Maricopa. It's a point of theory that could be argued, but it makes sense to me. If Maricopa doesn't have a lexeme for "and", or Dothraki doesn't have a word for thank you, (assuming Dothraki is a real human language, of course) that's interesting. It's not a problem. To say a language is "lacking" a certain word would be like saying a certain species of woodpecker has "too short" a bill. It is what it is, and we need to adjust our theories accordingly, not try to force the subject matter into the theory. And actually, there probably is not a tenet of theory that predicts this word, just what you might call a cultural prejudice. 71.93.172.99 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
Please provide me with some honorable greetings Or symbolisms.

Thank you so much, Henry 174.68.59.38 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)