Talk:Mi'kmaq language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Endangeredlanguages, -editedbymj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Míkmaq orthography
If the 1974 Francis-Smith orthography was accepted as official in 1980 as it says in the article here (and also here), should the Wikipedia not prefer this orthography for articles relating to the Míkmaq? Evertype 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was all set out to disagree with you because I was sure that (when googling before) the results came up uniformly "Mi'kmaq" but now I'm finding a great difference. The Elsipogtog band council website uses Migmag. Red Bank and Fort Folly both use Mi'kmaq, and the website you yourself referenced uses Mi'kmaq.  Listuguj uses Mi'qmaq.  Over all though, I think that despite it being official, it isn't the most common.  Though I am not very well informed on this issue (I admit), from the websites I have searched, and the fact your own reference page does not use it, I tend to disagree. - BalthCat 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've written to some apparently governmental authorities to ask. If we don't use the "offiicial" one, we have to decide to prefer  '  (apostrophe) or  ’  (right single quote); the second is far preferable. Evertype 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the truly "standard" spellings, we have Míkmaq, Mi'gmaq, and Mi:kmaq. I suspect Mi'kmaq is either a fallback for the i-acute, or a compromise between the official orthography and Listuguj orthography. See this page which we link from the article. Evertype 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have spent a fair bit of time listening to the mi'kmaq dictionary here. First thing that strikes you, is that as per the central american aboriginal dialects, there is many sounds with no direct representative in the English alphabet.  Example my college Spanish teacher liked to use was the way the European spelling goes back and forth between México and Méjico because the actual sound was somewhere between the spanish x and j.  Second thing that strikes me is that the dictionary is maintained by the Gaspé band!  Surely there would be many regional differences in pronunciation, as surely as someone from the South Shore of Nova Scotia speaks with a different accent than a Caper.  I doubt that Mi'kmaq was particularly homogenous at the time of European contact, which means that the different spellings of may ALL BE CORRECT, based on local pronunciation.
 * With that said, I support the adoptating of a standard for wikipedia, though we need to explore and if proven acknowledge regional differences in this article... WayeMason 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The x in México reflects the local [ʃ] pronounced by the indigenous people. At that point in the history of the Spanish language, both [ʃ] and [x] existed, but the former was merging with the latter. Research I've been doing suggests very strongly that the apostrophe is a fallback for the acuted vowels. Compare also the following words: kékwipukuwáʼij (Francis-Smith), ge’gwipuguwa’ʼij (Listuguj), ke:kwipukuwa:ʼij (Lexicon). There's a glottal in there... much simpler to mark length with the acute! Evertype 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Another note: No user of the fallback apostrophe would dispute that the use of the acute is closer to the standard. Evertype 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's not what is official, but what is used most often, on Wikipedia, is that not the standard here? I guess what you'd need to establish is what Mi'kmaq write by hand?  - BalthCat 02:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is no central authority, is there? It's not as if there is an official government of Mi'gma'gi or a paper or record or anything.  What there is, on the ground, is geographically dispersed reserves spread throughout four provinces in over a half dozen historically separate Mi'kmaq regions.  Not so long ago, I was taught in grade school about the pictographic language...  not an english spelling.  Anyway, my point before maybe needs expanding... you have a great deal of people, primarily English (or French!) speaking Mi'kmaq spelling Mi'kmaq as best they can in phonetic English, or French.  There is no single way that people write in fact, I suspect.   We should probably pick an orthography that is used by the largest number of bands and go with it.WayeMason 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This sort of issue is going to come up again and again in dealing with Native ethnonyms. Generally speaking, each language is going to be spoken in many dialects in many communities which may or may not be united politically. Some groups have set up orthography standardisation committees (Chipewyan, Mohawk, Ojibway), but these do not necessarily have juristiction over the entire language area. Even where all communities participated (in the case of Mohawk), the decision of the committee was to make official several different standards. Thus the Mohawk language could be spelled Kanien’kéha or Kanyen’kéha. Both are correct. However, in speaking English, almost everyone says “Mohawk”. In the Mi’kmaq case, a language spoken in two countries including five Canadian provinces, there are numerous juristictions, with several standards. Each standard should be respected as “official” in its own context: Míkmaq, Mi’gmaq, Mi:kmaq... Furthermore, the word Míkmaq/Mi’gmaq/Mi:kmaq is the plural: the singular Míkmaw/Mi’gmaw/Mi:kmaw is used by some people as the ethnonym instead. As use of Native ethnonyms in Canada increases, a standard spelling is likely to evolve on its own. We say “Inuit” (sg. Inuk) and “Inuktitut” in English now instead of “Eskimo”, even though in other dialects, it is spelled Inuttut, Inuttituut, Inuktun, etc. Athabaskan people in the NWT are called “Dene” in English, while in the languages, it could be Dene, Dëne, Dinjii, Danne, etc. At the moment, there is no conventionalised spelling for Mi’kmaq in English so we have two choices: a) use all orthographies, b) spell it in English as “Micmac”. In this case, option b) seems out of favour. I suggest that Wikipedia reflect a more open philosophy and accept all the different spellings (as well as the English “Micmac”). Each spelling would be directed to the same page, where an explanation of the different forms would be included. I don’t see any way of narrowing this down to one spelling. Oddly enough, it’s Mi’kmaq which crops up the most often – it’s what I’ve used in this article. This conforms to none of the official orthographies, and may be an organic English spelling is coming to fruition. Appologies for the agricultural metaphors. Languagegeek 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll return with a comment here in due course. Evertype
 * See below. Evertype
 * Funny, I could have sworn Mi'kmaq was an official spelling. It's certainly the most common.  No matter what spelling, the pronunciation is the same.  The letter 'k is pronounced as a hard g.  (The apostrophe indicates that the k is voiced). q represents not quite the sharp Semitic q, but a raspy voiced guttural like aargh... a is long as in father, i is long as in Machine.  So the name of The People is pronounced /meeg-magh/. The English word Micmac is the worst mispronunciation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect here. <í> and  and  all represent long /i:/. The variation of pronunciatin /g/ ~ /k/ for  is a matter of the reading rules, with regard to the position of the ; it is (I should check to verify this) /g/ before liquids and nasals and intervocalically. As far as the English pronunciation /'mikmæk/ is concerned, blame the French. Evertype 16:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do check. The apostrophe does not go with the vowel, it goes before a consonant 'p, 't or 'k to indicate when it is to be pronounced voiced in exception to the above 'intervocalic' rule, i.e. as english b, d, or g. Of that I am positive. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single website I can find agrees with you, that the apostrophe is used to mark vowel length. But I am sure the book I learned from some time ago said it was to mark consonant voicing when not expected.  Perhaps that was a different Orthography, but I was pretty sure it was Francis-Smith.  I found only one website where an associate of Bernard Francis himself explained that "You put the apostrophe in for vowel length, and you put the apostrophe in for consonant length as well" .... Mi'kmaq Dialogues  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In Listuguj orthography iga'tas'gl there are two apostrophes. The first shows that the vowel is long. The second stands for schwa. In Francis-Smith orthography this word is written ikátasɨkl. Both are pronounced [iga:dasəgl]. Another example: Listiguj orthography gegina'matimgewei, F-S orthography kekinámatimkewei, pronunciation [kegina:madimgewei]. I haven't seen anything that suggests that Míkmaq has consonant length. Evertype 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have here in front of me a table of Mi’kmaq orthographies (Roy Wright’s The Micmac Language in “A Literary and linguistic history of New Brunswick. 1985), of which there are 18. In several of these, an apostrophe before a resonant (L, M, or N) makes these syllabic resonants. It makes sense that /əl/ would become syllabic /l̩/. In Maliseet, a closely related language to the west, apostrophes are written before consonants to indicate they are to be pronounced voiceless, for example: ’poskomon “he wears it” is pronounced [pəskəmən], but posonut “basket” is [bəzənot]. Mi’kmaq long consonants are sequences of two regular consonants, as opposed to long vowels which in Mi’kmaq are distinct phonemes. I think that the spelling Mi’kmaq could be an example of people typing the language in the Francis-Smith orthography with a US English keyboard; for convenience’s sake the apostrophe is used instead of the acute accent. The resource I’m looking at, however, shows the two “Francis” orthographies (1970) and one “Smith” (1974): Neither uses the acute accent — Francis2 uses  while Smith uses <’>. The spelling Mi’kmaq is in the Smith 1974 orthography. Most others use  instead of . Languagegeek 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So may I summarize where we seem to be heading here as a non-language geek? We are likely to use the Francis 1974 Orthography.  We will include where possible examples of local spelling and dialect on the local band/reserve/nation pages.   Are accepting that we will use the apostrophe instead of the acute accent? WayeMason 11:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that, by far, the most common spelling seems to be Mi’kmaq, even though this spelling may not be in an officially recognised Mi’kmaq orthography. If this has become a recognised English word then it’s the one we ought to use; Míkmaq on the other hand does not seem to be an English word. However, on the Wikipedia pages written in Mi’kmaq, both the official orthographies would have to be accepted: Míkmaq and Mi’gmaq, but not Mi’kmaq. There is also the problem that in the US, the Aroostook Band of Micmacs continues to use the usual English rendition. Simple enough, eh? To take this further, what do we do in situations like Nłeʔkepmxcin (Thompson Salish)? There is no English version of the ethnonym, yet we cannot expect English speakers to be able to spell or pronounce slashed-l’s and glottal stops. This is something I’ve been working on with sections of the federal government, at the moment, there is no satisfactory answer. My big question is of a technical nature. If we go with Mi’kmaq (U+2019), will people who type Mi'kmaq (U+0027) in Google or the Wikipedia search box be directed to the right page? Do these searches recognise U+0027 and U+2019 as the same thing? If not, I don’t see how Wikipedia users are going to be able to type the curly apostrophe. Agh, I wish the dumb quote were never invented in the first place. I guess my vote would be for Mi’kmaq and be done with it. How do we handle the Listuguj Mi'gmaq First Nation page? Languagegeek 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * to the first question, if we explain this on this page, and have the referers for alternate spellings set up... Micmac Language and Mi'kmaq language to Mi’kmaq language we should be okay. As an aside, I cannot even find the ’ on my Mac...  I can do french accents no problem!   To the second question... first two sentences  - The Listuguj Mi'gmaq First Nation is a First Nations community with a registered population (2003) of 3152 members, most of whom are of Mi'kmaq  ancestry.  (For an explanation of the English spellings of Mi'kmaq see Mi’kmaq language.)  And then we have to make sure that we have a few short paragraphs here explaining orthographies and regional dialects...  WayeMason 12:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article to explain the orthography in a comprehensive fashion. I dislike the apostrophe a lot, but don't think that either it or a spacing acute or a quotation mark is the best thing to use. Those sources which discuss Míkmaq orthography note that i' is a fallback for í (the Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management section of the provincial government states as much), and I think if we stick to Francis-Smith we will be able to avoid more argument than less. I've seen no sources stating that  is the wrong spelling, but plenty that note that it's the real F-S spelling even though the source is writing  "for practical purposes". I've seen a number that warn against , perhaps some sort of hypercorrection arising from an analysis of the apostrophe as an abbreviation mark or other separator. I also note that a number of Wikipedia editors are using the formal F-S orthography already, as in the table of First Nation Subdivisions on the Míkmaq page. So... I'm going to be bold and opt to normalize this and hope that wrath is not visited upon me. Evertype 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But, are we using the Francis for other? For example, I have seen spelling of both Mi'kma'ki and Mi'gma'gi for the nation or territory, for example... WayeMason 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be Míkmáki in F-S orthography, and Mi’gma’gi in Listuguj (Listukuj!) orthography. Regarding the first sentence, I've revised it thus: "The Listuguj Mi'gmaq First Nation (in Francis-Smith orthography Listukuj Míkmaq) is a First Nations community..." and for completeness at the end of the article I've added "Listuguj is also used as a name for one of the Míkmaq orthographies." If necessary, on certain articles we can use (For an explanation of the English spellings of Míkmaq see Míkmaq language.) Evertype 08:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Move from Mi'kmaq to Míkmaq?
I am really confused now. It looked like we had a clear consensus to keep the article at the spelling Mi'kmaq. Then without any explanation, Evertypr just went ahead and performed the move anyway. I may revert this and put it up for a vote. This shows complete disregard to every word that everyone has said here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was bold and moved this article because Míkmaq is the formal Francis-Smith standard which was adopted by the Grand Council. and because it is simpler to use this than to have to worry about whether Mi'kmaq or Mi’kmaq or Mi´kmaq should be used. Why does this make you angry? Evertype 21:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my point: a number of sources cite Francis-Smith as the official orthography, and note that for various reasons the apostrophe (or the right quote, or the spacing acute) are used instead. That does not mean that anyone opposes the use of the formal orthography. So... why should we not use it? Because if we don't then we have to argue about the apostrophe and the right quote and the spacing acute. Evertype 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we have to argue about the right quote and the spacing acute. Let everyone explicitly vote on this move, if it wasn't expressly clear enough, then if there is consensus for a move it will be proper. .  I vote to keep the page right where it has been - Mi'kmaq language.  Reason:  It is by far the most common variant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The apostrophe, the right quote, and the spacing acute are all fallback representations of the vowel with the acute accent. Your claim that Mi'kmaq is most common ignores Mi’kmaq and Mi´kmaq which are also valid fallbacks. The point is that the fallbacks fall back from the actual standard, which is Míkmaq. Evertype 22:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Common use = use a referring page. It is hard to hand pick one spelling for one of the languages words.  I am now of the mind we need to pick an orthography and defend that use, otherwise we are going to have a 1000 word debate about EVERY SINGLE Míkmaq word we every use.  I support the change.WayeMason 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll just go over a few opinions and thoughts. a) There is no language-wide official orthography. This is going to come up again and again with Native languages. b) Is “Míkmaq” an English word? In Canadian English, it invariably shows up as Mi’kmaq/Mi'kmaq – let’s not blame the English speakers for misinterpreting here as 9½ times out of 10 Míkmaq is written Mi’kmaq by the First Nations’ speakers themselves. And for an English Wiki page, shouldn’t the title be the English word (Mohawk instead of Kanien’kéha). However, the trend in this country is starting to be to write out Native words in their orthography where possible, e.g. Stó:lō instead of Halkomelem. c) Even inside a single community, there is going to be variation. On this site: http://www.gesgapegiag.com/index.php, both orthographies are used here and there, so we might want to give up choosing something based on usage. d) I suggest we contact the various Míkmaq governing bodies and ask them which they prefer: Mi’gmaq, Mi’kmaq, or Míkmaq. If we don’t end up contacting them, I think I’d vote for Míkmaq out of respect for the decision made by the language standardisation committee. If we want to use a purely English word, Micmac is the choice, and that seems to have become an outdated term. (Wow, I actually didn’t wishy-washy my way out of this‽) Languagegeek 07:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice use of the interrobang. I'll give my views on your points. a) True, but one has been described as having been adopted by the language standardization committee, and even many pages which use a' e' i' o' u '  (or a’ e’ i’ o’ u’ or a´ e´ i´ o´ u´) instead of á é í ó ú describe it as a variant of the "official" standard. b) Certainly. Micmac is the traditional English spelling, but there is nothing "wrong" with Míkmaq (and nothing more "English" about Mi'kmaq (or Mi’kmaq or or Mi´kmaq) than Míkmaq). Remember, we're not talking only about the spelling of this word. We are talking about placenames and other words. We're talking about a stylesheet for the encyclopaedia: which orthography should we default to? I believe that the apostrophe/right-quote choice is problematic, and I believe that there's no evidence to suggest that speakers of Mík would claim that the use of the acute is "wrong". And back to your original question: Well, Míkmaq is a variant spelling of Micmac as far as English speakers go. Kanien’kéha ~ Mohawk is a different thing. c) Where a placename for instance is in Listukuj orthography, that should be kept, with reference to the "standard" spelling in the article. I don't see a problem there. Default to the standard, and use other othographies when appropriate. d) I did write to a couple of appropriate addresses but have had no response. I would like to move to Míkmaq, as you say, out of respect for the decision made by the language standardisation committee. Shall we? -- Evertype· ✆ 09:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Evertype, I am starting to think you are singly determined to ramrod the outcome "Míkmaq" through &mdash; despite the fact that this is practically never actually used &mdash; and despite what anyone else may say or think about it. There's nothing broke here, nothing needs to be fixed, no foreseeable problems will arise if the article is simply left where it is, at the most common and correct spelling Mi'kmaq, and all this whining about what type of identical apostrophe is used seems to me a poor pretext for making it look like a problem, when there is none. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know, I disagree with you. I think that the evidence shows that Míkmaq is identified by authorities as the standard, and that Mi’kmaq, Mi'kmaq, and Mi´kmaq are identified fallbacks for that spelling. I think the apostrophe (U+0022) is an extremely problematic character in terms of orthography, and I stand by my recommendation: We should use Francis-Smith orthography with the acute accent as the default on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype· ✆ 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Míkmaq abounds with ad hoc and informal shortcuts and fallbacks. The barred-i ɨ [ə] is often typed # or ~ because the correct character isn’t on the US English keyboard. This doesn’t mean that # or ~ are proper orthographic symbols in the language, just a convenient keyboarding substitute. Same goes with the apostrophe, although it does have a rôle in the language: to mark syllabic nasals and liquids. The Míkmaq now have a keyboard layout of their own, so we can expect the proper acute accents to start appearing in texts. I agree that Mi’kmaq is, currently, by far the more popular spelling. However, the practice in Canada is to spell placenames, ethnonyms, and other Native words, in English contexts, according to their locally accepted standard orthographies. Look at the placenames in the NWT for examples. Thus Míkmaq would be the correct spelling of the ethnonym for those communities using the standardised spelling. Languagegeek 21:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Mikmaq abounds..." Hey, has either one of you ever come face to face with a Mi'kmaw person in your entire Life?  You sure sound like you know exactly what you are talking about!  I am not convinced that the "accent aigue" or whatever is even correct Francis-Smith according to anyone else but now defunct micmac.com, it seems that Messrs Francis and Smith themselves intended the use of the Apostrophe as I have already demonstrated by quoting an elder who worked with them.  The accent looks artificial and doesn't even look Mi'kmaq. Also, you may fret about what apostrophe is the "right" apostrophe if you have nothing better to do, but in practical terms there is no actual problem with the location of the article where it is now, and anyone can type it easily on their keyboard - more than I can say for the fancy looking accent.. If you are so determined to foist this travesty on the article please do not attempt move it without going through the formal "Move page" vote procedure, because it is disputed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hey, has either one of you ever come face to face with a Mi'kmaw person in your entire Life?"
 * Yes, and I designed the Míkmaq keyboard as they instructed me to. Anway, my opinion is to go with what’s official orthography. We should respect the direction provided from the Míkmaq Grand Council’s language committee. Their opinion trumps anything any of us have to say on the matter, and I’m happy to go with whatever they suggest. And the Francis-Smith with the acute accents appears in other places besides micmac.com (see links in previous posts). I am not trying to force my opion on anyone, just that we should go with what’s official, and I think Evertype has provided ample sources to show that Míkmaq is the official spelling. Languagegeek 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you show me the link one more time that proves the accent is "official" F-S orthography, and not the apostrophe? I must have missed it. I do not dispute that F-S is official, but according to the links I can find, F-S designed it with the apostrophe, not the accent, for various reasons.  Did the Grand Council Language Committee say anything about this?  I maintain that the accent is a later contrivance and not official, and at any rate, since wikipedia policy is to go with the most common accurate usage in English, that would be Mi'kmaq, no way by any stretch is it "Míkmaq".  Also, again, a page move vote is essential in the event of a dispute, according to due process. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can support Micmac (which is the real English term) or Míkmaq (which is th Grand Council's standard). But that is just for that word. The question of orthography for Micmac/Míkmaq words in general is also what this question is about. -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Micmac is obsolete and is no longer the most common in English and is in no way acceptable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There are 2,000,000 hits on Micmac in Google. It's a headword in the OED. That's not "obsolete". It is not "offensive" (not like Lapp/Sami); it is just an English spelling. It is in no way "obsolete" and it is, as I say, acceptable to me. But again, this question is about orthography in general, not just this word. -- Evertype·✆ 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of wikipedia to lead social change. We need to keep in mind our job is to report on what is out there.  What is out there is a hodge podge of different usages.  MicMac is still very much in use, if nothing else, there are hundreds of place names using it that will likely NEVER be changed.  As I just said on Codex' user page, our job is to report on the usage, which is confusing, because in real life, it is confusing.  Our job is not to predict social change or cause change.  The use of an existing orthography in teh body of the Mi'kmaq related articles makes sense for ENCYCLOPEDIC CLARITY.  Then, inside of those articles, we need to describe and use the the local and regional dialects to ensure COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY.
 * I believe I have done a good job with the rewrite on this article. As far as I know it describes accurately the status of Míkmaq orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What we have right now is one spelling for the title of this article, and a different spelling for the first sentence. THIS IS BAD WIKI.  Can we please move toward consensus on an orthography and implement it?WayeMason 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been trying. -- Evertype·✆ 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

End this now
Hello folks. I am in the process of contacting Dr Murdena Marshall, an elder and member of the Eskesoni Board of Directors, who is a respected linguist and expert on living culture of the Micmac. Oh, by the way. Did I mention my office is on Gottingen Street? In Halifax? Across from the "Mic mac Native Frendship Centre?" Next door to the "Mi'kmaq Child Care Centre?" I just went over to both places to talk about this to actual Mi'kmaw. Here is the deal... based on non-academic real world, these people say that Micmac is still used but is being replaced. The friendship centre has yet to change its name, its not "offensive" its just out of date. Christine, a fluent Mi'kmaq speaker, who runs the Children's Centre, gave me Professor Marshall's contact info, so I could speak with her about this. She had been in town YESTERDAY for Treaty Day at the Legislature, and she said it was too bad I missed her, I could have come to the big turkey dinner yesterday... so sad! But the big thing I learned from Christine today was that the spellings are often different in English and French... though she felt Dr Marshall would be able to provide an actual list of common spellings in English, she kinda poo poo'ed the Francis orthography... heh. Anyway, I will report back with the results from a creditable source as to what teh actual field conditions are and we can move this out of academic ridiculousness and into usable encyclopedia building. WayeMason 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Great I am glad to hear this! Give my regards to Dr. Marshall, Christine and everyone else there!  By the way, this probably isn't relevant, but the spelling "micmac" does have a negative meaning in French, which I believe is totally unrelated to the people... Nemultisap, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my support for the orthography with acute accents adopted by the Grand Council. If that is not accepted, then we have to argue over left-quote vs. apostrophe, which will not be much fun. And Codex, I find your constant shrillness to be impolite and hostile, and I wish you would desist. Words like "foist" and "travesty" are just inappropriate. Languagegeek and I know rather a lot about the orthographies of minority languages, and have been trying to deal with this soberly. As far as I can see, YOU are the only one who does not like the proposal to move to the official Francis-Smith orthography; everyone else here has indicated that it would be acceptable. -- Evertype·✆ 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it in those terms... As near as I can tell, F-S orthography was originally designed by Francis and Smith to use the apostrophe... So as I have been saying all along, I won't say I object to Francis Smith, just the accent... And no, I don't see why we would have to argue about the apostrophe, again as I have been saying all along, the current location of the article ain't broke, no need to fix it, it isn't causing any problem whatsooever, if you think it does you can make redirects to here from the other apostrophes that aren't on anybody's keyboard and that should solve it.  The whole apostrophe issue seems contrived solely for the purpose of derailing the title to the accent version, like some kind of card trick where you end up being forced to pick the one YOU want... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The question of apostrophe vs. curly quote is not "irrelevant" and good typography matters. The issue at hand is which orthography shall we use for all articles dealing with this subject; the spelling of the title of this article is but one example. A good deal of the Míkmaq words in various articles uses the acute accent. A number of external sites using one of the apostrophe choices explicitly state that they are doing so as a fallback for the real acute. As Languagegeek says above, we can do no wrong if we use the acute, if that is what the Grand Council chose. -- Evertype·✆ 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The name of the Míkmaq language
From Nativelanguages.com: "The Mi'kmaq language, Míkmawísimk, is an Algonquian language spoken by 8000 Indians in the Canadian Maritimes (particularly Nova Scotia) and a few US communities.... The Micmac First Nations are indigenous people of eastern Canada, variously spelled Mi'kmaq, Míkmaq, Mikmak, Mi'gmak, or Mikmaq. Their original term for themselves was Lnu'k (or L'nu'k), "the people." Mi'kmaq comes from a word in their own language meaning "my friends"; it is the preferred tribal name now, though fluent speakers often use the adjective form, Mi'kmaw". This and other references are the basis for the current text, which Codex has seen fit to change without reference. -- Evertype·✆ 08:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Codex, your reversions are hostile and in bad faith. I have requested discussion and provided information here to discuss. I will request the intervention of moderators in this case. -- Evertype·✆ 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, you could resolve this simply by providing sources for what you say. I don't know which is correct, but you're unlikely to convince anyone if you don't back up your assertions.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Mi'kmaq language will be what it is, whether I can convince you or not. It does not change according to what people might think or be convinced.  But people pretending to be an expert on things they wouldn't  even know if they saw, and reverting correct information without looking into it, that is what is wrong with Wikipedia.  Try this link, or just ask some Mi'kmaq: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:blwAxjcK4wsJ:jcbeliveau.iquebec.com/lexiquemicm.htm+mi%27kmawey&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codex Sinaiticus (talk • contribs)


 * That link isn't working for me. What is it meant to show? And please drop the incivility. Evertype's version is sourced, no one's "pretending" to be anything.--Cúchullain t/ c  17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mi'gmewei glusuaqann (= Mi'kmaq Lexicon) Do some other searches for spellings like Migmawei, Mikmaway, Mi'kmaway, Mi'kmawei etc. And the singular is Mi'km /migm/ as in "Nin na Mi'km", I am a Micmac. Please do not revert correct information and think you knwo everything. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you'd assume good faith. Anyway, I initially put Migmawei back in per your insistance, but looking at here, "Mi'gmewei" is actually a noun animate or inanimate meaning "pertaining to Mi'gmaq", "belongs to Mi'gmaq," or "of Mi'gmaq." It isn't the word the site uses for the language, which seems to be just Mi'gmaq, though "Migmewigtug" appears on the search button. It sounds like this definition of Mi'gmewei is consistant with the title of your lexicon above (though I still can't access it to see for myself). Unless someone can provide confirmation of your use of the word, I suggest you are mistaken in your assertions. At any rate, it shouldn't go back in the article without a source.--Cúchullain t/ c  17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in the link given by Codex, the following entry occurs: "Micmac / Micmaque / Mi'kmaw (Le langage Mi'kmaw -La langue Mi'kmaw): Mi'kmawi'simk." Here we have an example of the adjectival use of míkmaw and the definition of 'Míkmaq language' as Míkmawísimk. We also have ''Parlez-vous Mi'kmaw ? L'nui'sin ki'l Mi'kmaw ? where the adjective is used nominally, and La langue Mi'kmaw est difficile pour moi: Metue'g mi'kmawi'simk tli'suti ugjit ni'n '' showing again the name of the language. -- Evertype·✆ 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What does "assume good faith" mean when you are deleting correct information and not allowing it back in? Looking up websites doesn't make you a regulating authority of the language, but your attitude seems to be that you will simly decide and revert based on your total lack of knowledge, so that's why it's hard to assume good faith. I guess you need to keep looking up a few more websites to find out that it is also the most common name for the language. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, man, I'm getting tired of your attitude. I don't claim to be a "regulating authority of the language," I just looked at the sources that were provided, as well as some I found in a cursory search. You need to consider WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. Evertype's sources back up what he says, and the online source I mentioned above contradicts your assertion. You have done nothing to verify your statement besides list one unfunctioning website and attack users who disagree with you (and I don't even disagree with you, I just said you need to provide a source, per official policy!) Are you an expert on the language? Do you expect us to take your word for it that what you say is true? If you won't provide sources I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're getting tired of my attitude? This is the problem with wikipedia.  Someone sitting in their armchair who knows less than would fit on the head of a pin about the Mi'kmaq, playing judge and arbiter and deciding what the name of the language is or isn't on the basis of what websites he can find.  But you also don;t like my attitude, and tell me to assume good faith about it, when I try to add correct information. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is hostile and vituperative, Codex. I've tried to be civil to you, as has Cúchullain. I don't believe you have proved your case even that the singular of Míkmaq is *Míkm. But you insult us. "Head of a pin"? -- Evertype·✆ 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an insult; it's a factual statement. I'm saying that you do not speak Mi'kmaq, and what you do know of Mi'kmaq is miniscule compared with the total corpus of the language.  Wouldn't you agree?  Do you feel insulted that I am pointing this out?  It would only be an insult if you applied it to someone who is earnestly trying to learn what the language "is", as opposed to dictating what they feel it "should be". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just an insight from the Anishinaabe language. Míkmaq person(s) = Miigimaa(g), speak Mi'kmaq = miigimaawisimo, Míkmaq language(s) = miigimaawisimowin(an), Míkmaq woman (women) = Miigimaakwe(g), Míkmaq person(s) [autonymn] = Ininii(g).  The term "miigim" is said to be related to "niijim", meaning "be my brother/friend".  The word for "man"("men") in the Ojibwe language is "inini(wag)" but is "ininii(g)" in the Algonquin language.  The Míkmaq peoples are mentioned in the oral history of Anishinaabe migration tale, and the condition of the Anishinaabeg heading inland depended upon guarantees provided by the Míkmaq peoples. So, how would the Anishinaabeg say "being/pertain to Míkmaq"?  Easy, "miigimaawi".  Both are Algonquian languages and even with many, many centuries of separation, the parallel between the two languages are still quite strong. CJLippert 03:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article title
Sorry, Evertype, I reverted your edit to match the title in the paragraph to the article's name. I did it for consistancy, not for any other reason. But if we're going to use the FS orthography, we'd better move the page. Since Codex has objected to the move previously, I'd suggest taking it to requested moves so we can get the opinion of others.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested discussion
I can see that the discussion regarding this article and related topics has gotten a little heated, but it seems to me that everyone here is making an honest effort to build the best, most accurate articles that Wikipedia can produce. As a result, I'm pretty confident that these problems can be worked out.

To begin with, I want to make certain that I understand what has been going on here. The central dispute seems to be about how to spell the name of the language (and related terms) and how much citation is necessary to reference whatever spelling is agreed on. There seem to be three options that have been presented.


 * 1) Micmac.  The references for this article use this spelling in their titles, and it is the source of the ISO language code.  However, those references date from the late 1800s, and the prevailing opinion on this talk page and in the literature is that this spelling has fallen out of favor.
 * 2) Mi'kmaq.  Most of the references in the related Mi'kmaq article seem to use this spelling.  This appears to be the most common spelling online and literature from the 1990s to date (perhaps in part because it lacks accented characters) and has some attested local usage as well.
 * 3) Míkmaq.  This spelling is the result of the standardized orthography designed for this language.  This is the official spelling insofar as that orthography's adoption is official, but may or may not be in the widest use.

Currently, a large number of Wikipedia articles use Mi'kmaq in their title (including the categories involved), although at least some articles are stylistically inconsistent, using multiple spellings or even switching between them. The preferred outcome is thus to set a local manual of style for these pages, to reduce editor conflict and to ensure that any necessary page moves are done in an orderly fashion (and only happen once).

Everything seem accurate so far? Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not qualified to debate this particular topic. I actually requested this discussion over another issue; [removed reiteration of the resolved dispute]. However, we are left with the issue of what to call the articles. You've got the basics covered, Serpent's Choice, but you are missing one thing in option 2: the issue of which type of apostrophe-thing to use. Three have been discussed: the apostrophe ('), the right quote (’), and the spacing acute (´). Which to use will have to be decided should that option be taken.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also want to ask WayeMason and Languagegeek to weigh in on this; they were involved in the naming dispute earlier.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that the MedCab case was originally opened regarding concerns about the need (or not) for certain citation tags, but at least to my outside eyes, at least some of the underlying issue involves the differences between the competing orthographies. As this talk page attests, that has certainly been an active debate in the past as well!  It seemed sensible to me that if everyone involved was going to get a chance to sit down and discuss what the article should evolve into, we might as well start at the top.  That allows a consistent style for this (and related) articles, and helps clarify what material might need to be cited, and what sources can provide that material.
 * I've taken your suggestion, and let WayeMason and Languagegeek know that this discussion is occurring. Once everyone's had a chance to weigh in, we can start addressing where the article needs to go from here.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "MedCab" refers to. It is my view that the official orthography Míkmaq should be used. It is my view that any of the forms of apostrophe (and something will have to be decided) are fall-back representations of the acute-accented í anyway. We should use the official orthography. If we do, we can avoid conflict by saying simply that we are using the official orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the conversation, Evertype. I've dropped a note to your talk page with some information about the Mediation Cabal and what I'm hoping to accomplish here.  I am hoping to give at least Codex a chance to take note of this discussion before getting too involved (as we'll then have the three most active editors to the page represented here).  In the meantime, I can at least address a question that both Cúchullain and Evertype have posed to me: Why did I not list variant forms of the apostrophe as possible orthographies for the article?  There are a couple of reasons for that, but my primary motivation for doing so was this manual-of-style policy requesting that "separate accent-like and/or quote-like characters" (except the apostrophe) "be avoided in page names." Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I suppose it makes more sense to decide between the "í" and the apostrophe-thing before deciding which apostrophe-thing to use.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for inviting me to this discussion. What is absolutely the most VITAL concern here is that you find people who actually speaks Mi'kmaq, or failing that, someone who has ever even shaken hands with a Mi'kmaq, to weigh in on this article.  If you do this, you will see that Mi'kmaq is what is actually in use today; Míkmaq is far less frequent in any language and as usual, is the invention of erudite scholars on other continents who only know what they can read in books, or worse yet, on google.  It is ESSENTIAL that you get people who really do know Mi'kmaq to determine standards, so that they will not be dominated by a group of self-described experts who think they know what the standards "should be" better than the speakers themselves, whether it is how to spell the language, to the actually incredible debates we had here recently over what certain words mean that were contested by non-speakers who don't speak a word of Mi'kmaq, but like to look like they are immensely knowledgeable of all things, even those they have never heard.  To have the information written by absolute non-speakers who pontificate that they are right, because they read it on google, and thus crowd out those who really do know something, would only provoke great resentment among more Mi'kmaq  if they were to become aware of what is happening on wikipedia. NEMULTISAP, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you ignore the incivility and arrogance in Codex's statement, you can see he actually has some good points. We should not decide on any local manual of style without getting the opinions of experts on the language (no, finding people who just speak the language is not good enough; I speak English, but would not be a good source on English orthography). That several different orthographies are used officially by different communities doen't free us from having to decide on a consistant spelling. As Codex has pointed out, "Mi'kmaq" is more common than "Míkmaq". However, Evertype thinks the apostrophe is just a fallback for the accent mark. If this were true, the forms would be essentially the same, and common usage would not distinguish one from the other. There seems to have been an attempt to contact experts about what they preferred. Did anything come of this?--Cúchullain t/ c 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be the same ground that was covered in earlier discussions. I’d like to add Mi’gmaq to the list of candidates, out of the 18 orthographies I’m familiar with, pretty much only the Smith-Francis orthography uses the letter k, and the g is certainly in use in many communities, especially in Quebec. Also, Micmac may be out of favour in most of Canada, but it appears to still be preferred by the Aristook community of Maine, so it shouldn’t be discounted. Leaving out usage of the language on websites (which could be one of the many “web-alphabets” around for Native languages which use only keys typable on US English keyboards), the archives of Nova Scotia have books using both Apostrophe and Acute-Accent spellings.
 * http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/mikmaq/libraryh.asp?&Search=&SearchList1=all&TABLE3=on
 * I don’t feel that we will reach a satisfactory resolution to this problem until Micmac language authorities (educational and political) have been contacted. I’ll volunteer to try and get us some answers. Languagegeek 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, here is some further information on the apostrpohe/acute accent issue. I asked everyone I knew of inside the Mi'gmaq community who might have something to say about the orthography status, and what I received back was rather interesting. Vowel length in the Smith-Francis orthography is supposed to be indicated with a spacing "tick mark", either ' (straight apostrophe) or ′ (prime). In a book of F. Pacifique's grammar, edited by Francis, words in the modern transcription have the "prime" tick. This is not a fallback measure, as he includes French words with acute accents. Why, then, does one version of this orthography use the acute accent? I was told that, the smart quotes feature in word processors were starting to change the "tick" into undesirable curly quotes. To combat smart quotes, people started using acute accents instead of the apostrophe. So, in a complete turn around, the acute accent seems to be the fallback! I would like to thank those speakers of Mi'gmaq who responded to my questions. It looks like both Mi'gmaq and Mígmaq are correct, with the former being the original. Languagegeek (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-25 Mi'kmaq language
Is this dispute still active or can I close the case? --Ideogram 08:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue is clearly unresolved, but the dispute seems to have died down.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll close it for now. If it needs to be reopened leave a note on my talk page.  --Ideogram 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was out of country when this dispute took place. I support the move to the standard orthography Míkmaq rather that the typewriter/email shortcut Mi'kmaq. Either that or use the English spelling Micmac. Not counting a few editors who didn't express a clear preference (or just reported on observations or google counts), we have myself, Evertype, Languagegeek, and WayeMason for, and Codex against. kwami (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I continue to support the move. -- Evertype·✆ 06:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also support the move to Míkmaq instead of the typewriter shortcut Mi'kmaq; I don't know enough to say whether we should use this orthography vs. the English Micmac. This is, of course, the same for all Míkmaq pages.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment in the section above. It seems that the tick-mark was the original way to mark a long vowel and not a typewriter shortcut. languagegeek (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq grammar, please?
So far, this article, in my opinion, looks good so far. However, like any other language, I would assume that Mi'kmaq would have a grammar. Can someone write a brief summary of the grammar in the article, followed by a page in its own right that gives the average reader a detailed summary of the grammar, please? --Daniel Blanchette (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Page moved
After the series of discussions, page moves, and Languagegeek's edifying comments above, I have moved the page to Mi'kmaq language. This does not imply that I think this spelling is the most correct or favorable. However, the spelling needs to be consistent with the main Mi'kmaq article, and especially within the article itself; any future discussions need to adress this issue of consistency.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Mi'kmaq (with a straight quote) is preferable for this article. languagegeek (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I defer to those who have a fuller knowledge of the subject than myself, but consistency is always key.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq Wikipedia
A Mi'kmaq language Wikipedia project has been created in the incubator. You are welcome to come help developing it. It can be access at this link :. Please pass the message around if you know potential interested people who speak micmac. Thanks you, Amqui (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mígmewei Wikipedia
L'nui'sin ki'l Mi'kmaq ? Nikma'jtut apoqnmatultinej ! Mikmaq Wikipedia Wela'lin Amqui (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Related Languages
The article states that Abenaki is extinct although there are probably still a handful of elderly speakers of Western Abenaki. OTOH there are no 'traditional' native speakers of Wampanoag, which became extinct early last century (at the latest). The language is however being revived and there are reported to be one or two young children who have learnt it from 2nd lang. adults. 91.85.49.50 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious transcriptions
According to the content of the "Phonology" section, toqju'pilaweg should read /toxtʃuːbilawek/, gesigawweg — /kezigawwek/, mgumi — /əmgumi/. There is something wrong either with the current transcription of these words or with the 1st paragraph of the "Consonants" section. Also, the "Writing system" section should be either before or at least immediately after "Phonology"—they're closely related. 176.221.120.207 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe 1'1, 2’2, or 3ꞌ3
I posted a similar concern response on the Mi'kma'ki talk page

I understand that the apostrophe is part of Mi'kmawi'simk's orthography, and I understand different orthographies are quite distinct one from another. But, most non-Wikipedia online sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and this all use apostrophes distinct from the – selon my perspective – awkwardly spaced apostrophe used here? Indeed, I am hard-pressed to find a source outside of Wikipedia that uses the aaaꞌbbb convention.

It seems there is variation between this: "aaa'bbb" and this: "aaa’bbb" (and of course, this: aaábbb / aaa:bbb) with no online (to my knowledge) use of this: "aaaꞌbbb"

In terms of readability, I am proposing rendering the page entirely in this (aaa'bbb) convention instead of this (aaaꞌbbb)

Danachos (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How many Mi'kmaqs?!?
Soooo, the intro says there are 20,000 Mi'kmaq people but the infobox says there are 168,000+? Which is it? The big number sounds suspicious to me, but I could be wrong. It&#39;sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. I can't seem to find numbers anywhere near that. Also, the number should combine the US and Canadian numbers. JMahoney (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to "Mi'kmaw language"
In proper spelling conventions, the adjectival form of Mi'kmaq is "Mi'kmaw," so: Mi'kmaw Nation and Mi'kmaw language. This page should be moved to "Mi'kmaw language" with redirects from "Mi'kmaq language" and "Mi'kmawi'simk" (and, I think also, "L'nui'simk") Danachos (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of this (a year later). I see further up the page, Cuchullain moved the page from (something) to Mi'kmaq language, "...to be consistent with the main Mi'kmaq article," but my understanding is that that "Mi'kmaq" is a plural noun, never an adjective; "Mi'kmaw" is the adjective. (But also I can find a lot of Web citations to argue either.)
 * I've otherwise been uninvolved in this article (and I'm pretty uninvolved in Wikipedia, lately, too) so I don't want to champion that move, but I figured I'd drop this note and mention the original mover to the current name to see if there's any interest in opening that up again. &mdash; mendel &#9742; _ * _ 23:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Mi'kmaq"
I came here to try to understand the pronunciation difference between "Mi'kmaq" and "Mi'kmaw", if there is one. But what I found instead is that in the lead sentence, "Mi'kmaq" is pronounced /ˈmɪɡmɑː/, and in a chart partway down the page, it's pronounced /miːkmax/.

On the off chance that someone else reading the talk page knows definitively which of those is correct, could they update either the lead or the chart? &mdash; mendel &#9742; _ * _ 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Native Name
Okay so maybe this has already been discussed - this page is obviously a disaster and the talk page is a mess as well - but the one native name for this language with a citation (Miꞌkmawiꞌsimk) isn't actually found in the source cited. The source uses two different names for the language, Míkmawísimk and Mi'gmawi'simg. I'll have to check to see if any of these fully adhere to any of the transcription systems but from what I remember the first (Miꞌkmawiꞌsimk) and second (Míkmawísimk) are just two different ways of spelling it in the most common orthography. If this page is going to use the former, it needs a citation that actually uses that spelling. I'm sure there are plenty of better sources out there if anyone has the time/inclination to track one down. Andyharbor (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)