Talk:Mixtec languages

Translation in Progress
I am in the progress of translating this article from the spanish wikipedia. Over there it was featured article and it rather long.Maunus 07:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, very good. You could also considering nominating it for translation collaboration at WP:SPATRA, who helped out in the translation of the Mesoamerica article from its spanish wiki featured equivalent. But they only do an article at a time, and 'vote' on which one to do next from a pool of candidates, so it might take a while.--cjllw | TALK  13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It had already been nominated. Lagringa 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger propose with Mixtecan language
I think the Mixtecan language article should be merged with this one. Any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.


 * Don't see any particular problem with that.--cjllw | TALK  00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree. Lagringa 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion (and it's been seven years since the above proposal), however at a quick glance it looks like two things are happening which might give one pause about combining these articles: (1) Linguists knowledgeable about this area apparently treat Mixtecan as a grouping including Mixtec languages AND several other groups of languages; and (2) this article is inconsistent in its use of the terms "Mixtec" and "Mixtecan."


 * If I'm correct about (1), then the articles should not be combined; and this article needs to be made consistent in its terminology. I think this article is talking about Mixtec (NOT Mixtecan) languages (NOT language, there's more than one). Mcswell (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since 2006 I have become wiser, and would no longer support the merger. Mixtecan is Mixtec+Cuicatec+Triqui.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions of coverance of Mixtecan languages
This page should be divided, I believe, into two: one for Mixtec languages proper and one for Mixtecan languages. Or else the discussion needs to be tightened up considerably. And the linguistic variation within Mixtec languages proper is not well represented in the current article. Stevemarlett 11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think first steps should be taken to improve the present article. Perhaps with a thorough definition of the different levels of "mixtec" and "mixtecan". Then maybe make a separate Mixtec languages article. This article is not among our best ones, that is for sure. Anything you can do to improve it will be well received.Maunus 12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

codes
Does anyone know how to edit the info box to let people know there are ISO 639 codes?--Tatapelu 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tatapelu, the instructions for editing the infobox may be found here. When editing the article, you just need to add the appropriate iso parameter(s) with their values.--cjllw | TALK  00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think all of those iso-codes should go in the infobox it will be a mile long.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating for WP languages
Expand upon tones. The word „interesting“ is a bit over-used. I’d agree that it’s interesting, but that’s not really lexical style. In-line references barely sufficient for B class, but a bit more references would be necessary for GA. In-line referencing should also be applied to grammar. Grammatical categories seem to be used a little uncautiously: it would have to be demonstrated, for instance, that the mere presence of some particle na constitutes a genuine “subjunctive mood” instead of just adding some modal meaning. This pertains mostly to the degree of grammaticalization. Far far too little syntax. On the plus side, the article contains a lot of info with useful and interlinearized examples that are easy to understand, and the info is fairly broad, though not complete. The sociolinguistic side is quite impressive, though info could be added even here, eg more on status. While I would hold that a C class rating is just possible, I think B class does more justice to the fine work done so far. (If you want to contact me, please give me a line on my talk page, as I don’t watch this language page.) G Purevdorj (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Omissions of source dialect identifications with examples
A surprising lapse in the current version: when examples of "Mixtec" are given, no indication is included as to which variety of "Mixtec". This even though — as the article itself emphasizes — Mixtecan languages number over two dozen, and even though the reference list includes works encompassing at least five different varieties. It would be nice if the various previous editors would remedy these omissions. Dale Chock (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Subcategorization of the Mixtecan branch of Otomanguean
I amended a footnote in the lead because it contradicted recent scholarship and it was on its face overstated. An aside: I fixed the misterminology of "the Mixtecan family of the Otomanguean family"; it's the Mixtecan branch. Moving on. Mixtecan branch has three constituents: Triqui, Cuicatec, and Mixtec. Whether to group the latter two together is an in fact open question. See Macaulay 1996 — a source already used by previous editors. Pp. 4, 6: "'Assuming, then that Mixtecan consists of [M, C, and T], . . . Josserand (1983) summarizes the arguments which had been made for and against various internal classifications in Mixtecan . . . and points out that most of them have been based on glottochronological analysis, a technique which is of course largely discredited now. She argues . . . 'To date no one has presented an ordered set of innovations which would . . . reveal the internal classification . . .' She therefore concurs with Longacre (1957) and Rensch (1976) . . . . Because Kaufman (1983) and (1988) are works which provide the kinds of analyses that Josserand calls for, I have adopted essentially his classification of Mixtecan here . . . . [but] the internal subgrouping of [M] should still be regarded as an open question.' [boldface added by me]" Thus we see that the sweeping conclusion of the old footnote, that Longacre (1962) made "convincing arguments" against any subgrouping, is baseless. First, he did not prove the negative, he only said that colleagues had failed to prove the positive (that is, if Macaulay's account is indeed correct). Second, it does not take into account the research done by Kaufman two decades later. I did some searching through Ling and Lang. Behav. Abstracts and through Google Scholar and I conclude that Kaufman's research is STILL unpublished a generation later. A mystery, yes, but he has shown his manuscripts to a few Mixtecanists, like Macaulay. Dale Chock (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Where Classical Mixtec?
Where Classical Mixtec or Dzaha Dzavui? Here Mixteco clásico. Also see, Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansen & Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez 2009, Voces del Dzaha Dzavui (Mixteco Clásico); Análisis y conversión del Vocabulario de Fray Francisco de Alvarado (1593). --Kmoksy (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there was a single Classical Mixtec. Documents were written in at least five lenguas.  Reyes chose Teposcolula/Nochixtlán as the prestige variety, but Hernández chose Achiutla/Tlaxiaco.  (See Reyes' classification.)  Neither corresponds to a single language today.  — kwami (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Lo menos" cinco variantes lingüísticas! OK, Thanks. --Kmoksy (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No "variantes", "lenguas". Pero el mixteco era también una "lengua".
 * Terraciano (2004) The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Ñudzahui History, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries has a chapter on "language" that's rather informative. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Meeshtek or Meestek ?
Which true? --Kmoksy (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mixtec people page: The Mixtec
 * Mixtec language page: The Mixtec (with ref.)


 * The OED has the latter. Actually, it's probably often /ˈmɪkstɛk/. — kwami (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I work with Mixtec speakers regularly and I’ve never heard anyone pronounce the name of the language or people with ʃ — most everyone uses /s/ when speaking Spanish. (The endonyms for the language are, of course, another story.) Indeed, only a few Mixtec variants allow ʃ as a coda consonant. This is probably derived from the Nahuatl pronunciation (I’m not sure, but I believe the Nahuatl word for ‘cloud’ is something like /miʃ/. Many linguists, however, use ʃ. This is probably an academic hypercorrection. I believe this should be corrected, but unfortunately I don’t have a citation at the moment. babbage (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that misteko or miksteko are the more common pronunciations in Spanish. But we are supposed to give th English pronunciation no?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

My family is Mixtec and I've done many studies on the language and culture. The actual way to say is "meeshtek" as Classical Nahuatl had the sh sound for the word cloud. When the Spanish spanisized the names of places, they used x for the "sh" sound. Since the majority of people were illiterate in the colonial era, this was lost and the Spanish pronounciation of x began to be used. Furthermore the majority of Mixtec families do not have a formal education and I've noticed countless times people from La Mixteca in Oaxaca tend to replace the x "ks" sound with "ts" or just "s." So many native speakers pronounce it "misteco." Edwin0719 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that in Nahuatl the pronunciation is "meeshtekah", but yes the most common pronunciation in Spanish today is probably misteko.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mixtec language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910162601/http://virtual.utm.mx/mixteca/ to http://virtual.utm.mx/mixteca
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201201515/http://aulex.ohui.net/es-mix/ to http://aulex.ohui.net/es-mix/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505205552/http://cdi.gob.mx/difusion/librostexto/4457_ok.pdf to http://cdi.gob.mx/difusion/librostexto/4457_ok.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522083137/http://es.tradupedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa:Recursos_en_Idiomas_Ind%C3%ADgenas_de_M%C3%A9xico to http://es.tradupedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa:Recursos_en_Idiomas_Ind%C3%ADgenas_de_M%C3%A9xico

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible wrong lines picked up from Spanish article
I'm looking at a couple of lines with error messages.

 CNTF:Counter-factual mood  Kúká-de.

shall-enrich he

"He is rich"

Núu ní-jí'í-de tajna̱.

if CNTF-took–he medicine CNTF

"If only he had taken the medicine!"

Both of these were converted into interlinear recently, but the text itself was imported into here directly from Lenguas mixtecas in 2007. I think the first one is an easy fix -- it should be shall-enrich-he. But the second one I think might be just wrong; there's no indication in the Mixtec of the CNTF at the end. I've not the foggiest notion how to go about verifying any of this, since there's no source in the eswiki article. (This all came about because I'd looked at a list of Quechua noun declensions and started browsing other New World languages in general hoping to find interesting stuff.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Which 'Mixtec'?
The text makes it clear that there is no accepted standard variety and that the varieties are so different as to be mutually incomprehensible, yet in much of the grammar section (starting from the verbs), it is not specified which variety is being described. Also, it isn't very good that the phonology described is of one variety and the grammar is of another - in that way, it's hard to know how to read the grammatical examples. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)