Talk:Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language

To do to improve

 * more on the Ojibwemowin dialect

Otherwise, the article is very good. All the extra information have already been summarised and placed in this article while the specifics of the article were given their own articles as further details. Special thanks to BentRedNewt/Whimemsz for all the dedicated efforts!! CJLippert 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) specific examples of differences and similarities across all dialects
 * 2) re-word each of the dialect descriptions to be less confusing
 * 3) examples of language use differences between ritual Anishinaabemowin and the secular Anishinaabemowin
 * 4) better referencing across all article sections

WikiProject Languages
I feel the layout of this article should be changed a bit to conform to the WikiProject Languages template. So I'm going to go ahead and change it. --Whimemsz 22:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Placement in the Algic family tree
Are you sure that Ojibwa is not Central Algonquian? Algonquian has three branches, Eastern, Central, and Plains. The Eastern branch has ten languages (including Abnaki, Micmac, Mohegan, Powhatan, Maliseet-Passamaquoddy and Wampanoag); the Plains branch includes Blackfoot, Arapaho and Cheyenne; there are several "outliers" that do not belong to any of the three branches (including Mahican, Piscataway, Lumbee and Carolina Algonquian); and then there is the big Central branch which counts 23 languages (including the several Cree groups, Montagnais, Potowatomi, Kickapoo, Shawnee, Algonkin, Menominee, Fox, Miami, Ottawa, and, as I understand it, Ojibwa).

Checking this on Ethnologue, I see that they show it as Algic - Algonquian - Central - Ojibwa (see Ethnologue report on Ojibwa). &mdash;Stephen 09:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Plains and Central Algonquian are not genetic divisions, merely divisions based on location. Only Eastern Algonquian is a true genetic subfamily. So it seemed misleading to classify Ojibwe as "Central Algonquian" in the family tree. --Whimemsz 00:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Recent work by Goddard and others (see references at Central Algonquian languages shows that there probably is something akin to Central Algonquian, although not necessarily with the same boundaries as the traditional geographic reference. However, Ojibwa is included in every variant of "Central Algonquian".  One of the functions of the template is to aid in navigation through Wikipedia, so I'm going to place Central Algonquian in the template.  This is especially relevant since the Central Algonquian languages article links to this page, but this page doesn't link back.  There are plenty of caveats in both this article and the Central Algonquian languages article to warn the reader that the genetic reality may be something different and that "Central Algonquian" as currently constituted in Ethnologue (for example) is a geographical grouping. (Taivo (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

In Central and Eastern Ojibwe, accent = syncope
I would say that in the case of Ojibwe, especially in Central and Eastern Ojibwe, as well as in Odawa, terms "accent" and "syncope" are one and the same. The word for "horse" is "bebezhigooganzhii", given as an example in the article. The metred foot would be "(be)( be -zhi)( goo -gan)( zhii )" but due to the resulting syncope, a pure byproduct of the accent meter, makes the word sound like "bbezhgoognzhii" with the unstressed long vowel reduced to a short neutral vowel while the unstressed short vowel dropping out entirely.

In Wisconsin, the unstressed short vowels don't drop out, but often instead go through transformation. However, this doesn't quite happen with the "horse" example, making the word sound like "bbezhigooganzhii". In Minnesota, and Ontario Saulteaux, the word sounds as the way it is written "bebezhigooganzhii". Manitoba Saulteaux, instead uses an entirely different word: "mishtadim", which do experience the reduction and sounds like "mashtadim". CJLippert 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My point was just that the term "syncope" is used to refer specifically to the loss of a sound. As far as I know, it's not technically synonymous with a stress pattern that results in syncope. That is, Ojibwe's stress pattern results in specific rules for vowel syncope in most dialects, but the stress itself is not equivalent to the actual "act" of dropping the vowels. If that makes sense. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you or I'm incorrect, though.


 * Take care. --Whimemsz 17:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Length
The article is nearly 50kb now. We should probably split it into a couple of smaller ones (probably the phonology section and writing section at least). Does anyone have any suggestions about what path to take? --Whimemsz 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to put the "Phonology", "Grammar" and "History" onto a different page, or have "Phonology" and "History" on a second page and "Grammar" on a third page.  Possible separate "Grammar" page might be prudent since this section potentially can grow to a size greater than the current single article as various sub-classes are added in. As a minor point, this would, however, cause the remaining sections to be slightly re-arranged in their presentation order and appropriate references and external links to be shared/divided between/among the two/three pages. CJLippert 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, good point about the grammar section; I agree with you there, then. Looking through the article again, it looks to me like moving the "Phonology" and "Grammar" sections to two new pages would be enough to bring the article to a more reasonable length (though quick summaries of the phonology and grammar would be kept in their respective sections). The "History" section is pretty short, and it doesn't seem to me that it has much potential to grow too much bigger, so I don't know whether we'd need to move that section. Anyway, I'll try experimenting with different possibilities on my subpage (User:Whimemsz/Current). Take care, --Whimemsz 22:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to include in the "Phonology" of the coalescing of "sh" with "s" in some Ojibwe dialects, resulting in additional clusters of "sp" and "st" in addition to the "sk", as well as the nasal carry-over of CVV if C is an "m" or "n", for example, resulting in "moose" being written in Ojibwe as either "mooz" or "moonz". If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you could also discuss about the long and short "e" that occurs in the western Wisconsin Dialect (as in "zaaga'egan -- lake"), and the "ai" diphthong that occurs in the eastern Wisconsin Dialect (as in "zaaga'aigan -- lake").  A discussion of the sh- to s-shifting consonant (N&N's /S/) and zh- to n-shifting consonant (N&N's /N/) would be a good addition as well.  When I suggested the "History" be moved to be with the "Phonology" page, this was part of my reasoning behind it since it does take linguistic reconstruction to explain these shifts.  Also worth mentioning are are the n/ø variation (as in "ningodwaaswi" vs. "ingodwaaswi" -- six) and its associated ny/y variations (as in "giigoonh" vs. "giigooy" -- fish). CJLippert 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Since my knowledge of Ojibwe comes mainly through N&N, I'm really only familiar with the Mille Lacs Minnesota variety, and not as much so the dialects spoken in Wisconsin or elsewhere. You obviously know more than I do about dialectal variations, so anything you could add to the pages would be great.


 * N&N's /N/ and /S/ come from the PA lateral fricative (> modern n), which even in PA became *š (> modern zh) before *i. I'm assuming that /S/ comes from the cluster *ʔɬ~*ʔš (> modern s and sh, respectively). I'm not sure of the origin of the other phenomena (although I had a vague suspicion that the various forms the first person prefix takes come from nasal assimilation, e.g. nig- > ning- (> ing-), and that the same thing happened with (n)ingodwaaswi and (n)ishwaaswi. I could easily be completely wrong, though. Take care, --Whimemsz 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think nasal assimuation is happening here (but don't quote me that, 'cause I need to think about this a bit more). Along with the n/ø variation, there is also a parallel zh/ø variation, as in zhaaganaash/aaganaash -- "English". I'm stopping here, because now I am getting way off track.  Let's see the article split and then these nitty-gritty details can be worked in later.  Miigwech on all your hard work! CJLippert 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okie-doke. Miigwech to you as well! Take care, --Whimemsz 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Though the page looks great, it is still very, very large. Would it make sense to move the writing system?  If we did, then we could talk about the ancient Ojibwe "heiroglyphics", Evans Double-vowel Roman, Evans Syllabics, Great Lakes Syllabics, Saulteaux-Cree Roman, Algonquin Roman, Fiero Double-vowel Roman and Rhodes Double-vowel Roman. CJLippert 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. And besides, it's a little odd to have half of the article taken up by a discussion of the orthography anyway. --Whimemsz 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Change the article title?
Do we want to keep the current title "Ojibwe language" or would it make more sense to migrate the article to a new title, maybe something like the "Anishinaabe language" or "Anishinaabemowin"? The main reason for this question is, in my opinion, having the "Ojibwe language" title seems to exclude the Odawa, Nipissing, Mississaugas, Algonquin and Saulteaux, but saying "Anishinaabe language" would include these groups. However, the shift would also beg the question of if the Potawatomi language would be folded into the article with the new name or if there ought to be an expanded discussion on the dialects, with a short paragraph or two regarding the Potawatomi language and providing a "Main article: ..." link in that section. Ideas, suggestions and your vote, please. CJLippert 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know more about this stuff than I do, so I'll trust your judgement on this one; if you think the title should be changed, that's fine with me. Man, I want to get my hands on some of Valentine's stuff so I can learn more about Anishinaabemowin dialectology...


 * If we do change it, I'd suggest perhaps "Anishinaabe language" or "Anishinaabemowin language"? Take care, --Red Newt 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has be given a new title. However, this now opens up other issues that make the article weak in places.  For example, the dominant dialect of this language is Ojibwemowin, but yet the discussion for this dialect is close to zilch.  However, this arrangement now allows for further discussion for additional information on other dialects of Anishinaabemowin.  Instead of the SILS grouping, I grouped the dialects by what the people call their speech or tribal affinity... to reduce the non-Anishinaabe slicing and dicing of the language(s). CJLippert 00:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the added dialectal info. I hadn't really understood the situation with Anishinaabemowin dialects when I fist tried to write that (very brief) section, so I basically took Valentine's discussion of dialects on his site with Ethnologue's divisions, and tried to mesh them together into something. Evidently, I wasn't successful :) . It's great to have the new sections and information! --Red Newt 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which is the authority used by the Canadian gov't, Canadian Press, newspapers, etc. recommends these English terms:

Ojibwa (also Ojibway, Ojibwe): 1. a member of an Algonquian people living especially around Lake Superior and certain adjacent areas. 2. the Algonquian language of these people [etymology: Ojibwa language, from a root meaning "puckered", with reference to their moccasins]

ISO 639-3 also prefers the term Ojibwa.

Although the term "Anishinaabe" might be accurate in the Ojibwa language itself, it's a non-standard English term (for the English Wikipedia). Which English language style guides and authorities recommend using terms other than Ojibwa (such as "Anishinaabe") to denote this language? It seems unsourced.

What is the official recommended usage in American English style guides used by the government, newspapers, etc? I would recommend changing the name of the article to Ojibwa language unless the foremost authorities on current American English say otherwise. If that's the case, then we need to compromise between the American and Canadian standardized English term.

If you're concerned about the term feeling exclusive to the Odawa people, we can always say Ojibwa-Odawa language, which I've seen used a lot. And then the article Odawa language focus on that dialect of the Ojibwa language.

The bottom line is that it's not our role to make terminological decisions. We should use the English terms that sources like the gov't, the press, ISO, linguists, etc. use.

--Sonjaaa (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishinaabe language is more than just the Ojibwa, and including the Ottawa still isn't inclusive enough. As inclusiveness and unity was main driver of name change from Ojibwa language to Anishinaabe language but if moving away from Anishinaabe language but still maintaining unity, the other official name of Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language would be the choice, with an Ojibwa-Ottawa language article created to bridge to the individual language articles or having a major revision of the existing Anishinaabe language dialects article restructured to the Ojibwa-Ottawa language and Potawatomi language format as well as bringing in discussions of their relationship not only with each other but to other languages or restructured in such a way to provide a bridge between the Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language and the individual languages via the Ojibwa-Ottawa language and the Potawatomi language article. Everyone agrees that the Mississaugas and the Saulteaux are the sub-tribes of the Ojibwa. The Ottawa language is agreed as a divergent dialect of the Ojibwa language. Though linguistically both the Oji-Cree language and the Algonquin language are considered particularly divergent dialects of the Ojibwa language, saying they are Ojibwa is often considered insulting. The Potawatomi language is not part of the Ojibwa-Ottawa language. However, all of these are considered part of the Anishinaabe language. So, if ISO name is driver, then the article should be renamed instead as the Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language. CJLippert (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To say an Oji-Cree

s to lay the foundation to both the individual languages and to the

Another split?
Discussion moved to Talk:Anishinaabe language dialects CJLippert 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article
I removed the following from the "vocabulary" section: "Contemporary words are created with ease by fluent speakers and a genuine understanding of the complex morpheme chains plays an important role in this process.  This flexibility makes the language durable in modern times but difficult to teach as there will often be many ways to describe the same concept.  However a sharp distinction must be made between literal and implied translations as they will often differ significantly as in the battery and airplane examples cited above." It more or less repeats the previous info in the section, and is written in somewhat unencyclopedic style (I think). However I think a lot of it addresses some important stuff, so I'm going to try to see if I can work some of it back in. --Miskwito 23:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is how at work I apply my Torah study techniques and as a chemist with Carbon chemistry so that I can understand the Anishinaabe culture, especially the language and Midewiwin.
 * The first (Peshat) level of Torah study, the simple meaning/idea is conveyed; generally a straight-forward literal understanding of the subject. Same with Anishinaabemowin.  In carbon chemistry, this is the simple chain level.  Everything on this level is linear.  The First-degree Midew look at the world at this level.
 * The next level is the Remez level of Torah study, where hints/clues are examined; generally, a circular argument is used, but with the firm grounding in the first level. Same with Anishinaabemowin.  In carbon chemistry, this is the organic rings level.  Everything on this level is circular/loop-system where one studies not the ring themselves but rather the implication of the rings to their surroundings.  The Second-degree Midew looks/understands at the world at this level.
 * The next higher level is the Derash level of torah study, where all the implied interpretations are examined; in this level, everything is iterative... a loop-system like previous system, by never repeating like the linear-system... this level is a spiral-system. Same is with Anishinaabemowin... expecially the ritual forms.  In carbon chemistry, again, this level is mimicked as spirals.  Again, the Third-degree Midew looks at the world from this perspective, always.
 * The highest level in Torah study is the Sod level; it is a global, all-encompassing way of study. Strangely or not, again, Anishinaabemowin works the same way.  In carbon chemistry, again, this level is mimicked as geodes, where by it shape, it can hide something like a metal within its cavity, but effecting the world around it with whatever that it hides in its encapsulation.  The Fourth-degree Midew (a Jiisakiiwinini) also looks and understand the world in this fashion.
 * At work, I see these played out in unexpected ways, such as with the decision-making process. For example, often my boss (a Christian) looks at the world in a linear fashion.  A good friend who is considered a young Elder (a non-Christian, but also not in the Midewiwin but grew up in a traditional fashion)  looks at the world in a circular fashion.  I look at the world in an interative fashion.  However, the Elders of the Elder Advisory Board (all are either 3rd- or 4th-degree Midew), who provides critical feedback to all of us look at the world on a global level... in both space and in time.  I often find myself thinking I'm looking at a problem globally, but then are often given reminders by the Elders of the iterative nature of my outlook.  My friend who is a young Elder is beginning to understand the world in a more iterative fashion... and really ought to be invited to be initiated.  The Elders often comment "We need to teach our youths our Traditional ways" because the youth are not being exposed to the highest level of world views, but rather stuck at the easy, linear, simple, literal view of the world around them.
 * I know this is a bit philosophical, but it works for me. The question becomes how explain this to the general population without doing what I am doing, which is looking at this from Jewish eyes.  The readers of the article must have the ability to read the ideas and concepts without such non-Anishinaabe filtration imposed onto the article. CJLippert 01:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to display ᐊᓂᔑᓈᐯᒧᐎᓐ
How do I display the characters for ᐊᓂᔑᓈᐯᒧᐎᓐ?

ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In order to see these characters, you will need fonts with the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (UCAS) range of UniCode. There are several fonts out there containing the UCAS range, such as Ballymun RO or Code2000, but if you go to Chris' LanguageGeek site at http://www.languagegeek.com and follow the "download" option, you can get the fonts of his creations in the UCAS range as well.  Place the font in your computer's Font file, and voila!.  Check the CAS article for more details. CJLippert 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of language name
While is, I think, a valid phonemic rendering of Anishinaabemowin for some dialects (although in practice the  is generally realized in those dialects as, as far as I know), I'm not sure  really is. As far as I know, the fortis fricatives are never pronounced as aspirated (,, etc. are difficult to distinguish from plain , , etc. in any case) in any dialect. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to give the alternate phonemic representation as instead of. But I could be wrong! (Of course, there's also a question of whether, say, and the like should be included as well...) --Miskwito (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC) In Anishininiimowin, to my knowledge, the phoneme ᐦ and ᐡ  seem totally seperate. I have also read somewhere on Wikipedia that certain dialects of Anishinaabemowin change an initial lenis consonant of a verb when it is immediately following a certain preverb (like gii-, I believe), which, to me, suggests that a fortis consonant is actually composed of a sequence of a fortis-making element (e.g. h) and the corresponding lenis consonant, in that order. What do you think about this?--Jeziorko (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there isn't a consistent pronunciation of the fortis sounds (let alone lenis sounds) across Anishinaabemowin, which is why there are so many different ways to represent the sound: Fiero zh \ sh can be (think of the syllabics),,  (think of Leonard Bloomfield) or  (think of Charles Fiero).  Also, among some speakers, instead of ,  is instead heard.  So what ought to be the primary representation?  I don't know.  My guess is good as yours.  However, I would caution that whatever that is chosen should match the article body. CJLippert (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker of Anishinaabemowin, but I think that the phonemic representation is best. Lengthening or post-aspiration, to my knowledge, might be best viewed as phonetic realizations of the underlying form rather than the phonemic form itself, if we want to contrast /*/ and [*].
 * Again, though it is very tempting to go with just the representation, it would be outright error in many Anishinaabemowin areas. Though it would clutter things, it might be better if we include both  and  as well as this article discusses primarily the non-syncoped form of the language. I think that it would also be good idea to add two most common pronunciations of "Anishinaabemowin" in each of the dialects discussed in the Anishinaabe language dialects article so that the reader could see the variations we're discussing here. CJLippert (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just considering the fact that /*/ is supposed to be an underlying representation, which perhaps is common across all dialects, including the vowel-syncopating ones, because even vowel syncope can be derived from a common-Anishinaabe underlying representation. On the other side, one could, like mentioned, show the surface pronunciations, but using [*] brackets, showing many dialect forms. These being on the side of the main article, I don't think they would clutter things too much. One could also have audio buttons, as IPA symbols can be meaningful to only so many people.--Jeziorko (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Anishinaabemowin
I've been wondering: Is there an Anishinaabemowin Wikipedia in plan?--Jeziorko (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No oj.wikipedia.org in the plans. However, there are several entries at Wiktionary. If an oj.wiki were to be started, the big question would be how the information would be displayed: roman (and if so, which orthography), syllabics (and if so, which orthography) or both? At cr.wikipedia.org, the results have been mixed. CJLippert (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the language and its dialects
Let's gather the various sources to compare the standardized English names for this language and its dialects according to different authorities.

http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/English_list.php

--206.248.172.247 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Marianne Mithun. 1999.  The Languages of Native North America.  Cambridge University Press.  Ojibwa = ojibway = Ojibwe = Chippeway:  Saulteaux, Northwestern Ojibwa, Southwestern Ojibwa, Ojibwa, Severn Ojibwa, Central Ojibwa, Ottawa = Odawa, Eastern Ojibwa, Algonquin (Potawatomi listed separately) (p.327)
 * Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution.  (Chapter headings) Potawatomi, Southwestern Chippewa, Southeastern Ojibwa, Ottawa, Nipissing, Algonquin (from Volume 15, Northeast); Northern Ojibwa, Saulteaux (from Volume 6, Subarctic); Plains Ojibwa (from Volume 13, Plains)
 * Lyle Campbell. 1997.  American Indian Languages:  The Historical Linguistics of Native America.  Oxford University Press.  Ojibwa-Potawatomi(-Ottawa); Algonquin; Salteaux (pg 153)
 * These are the standard reference works in Native American linguistics.
 * (Taivo (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Title for this article
Changing “Anishinaabe language” to “Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa” is very unfortunate and linguistically misleading. Potawatomi is indisputably a separate language distinct from any variety of Ojibwe, although certainly closely related to Ojibwe. Sandwiching Potawatomi between “Ojibwa” and “Ottawa” – leaving the non-Algonquianist with the impression that Potawatomi is somehow intermediate between the other two, or equivalent in linguistic status - is even more unfortunate. The discussion under "Classification" doesn't help much since it invokes "Ojibwa-Ottawa," which is not a label that is used at all in the literature on Ojibwe. The relationship between this article, the "Ojibwa-Ottawa language" article, and the "Potawatomi language" article needs to be clarified, and the same can be said for the proliferation of other articles on varieties of Ojibwe. As well, this article is almost completely lacking in citations. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current title of this article is, indeed, not the best (it follows Campbell). But even so, it is superior to the non-descriptive "Anishinaabe".  While that may be the native label for the language it is especially problematical when one looks at all the other articles for Ojibwa varieties that start (now or in the recent past) with Anishinaa.....  It is the equivalent of labelling all seven articles for Numic languages "Nümü".  While it may reflect native nomenclature, it is unusable in an encyclopedia setting.  These articles on Ojibwa varieties should reflect ISO 639-3 usage, IMHO.  However, ISO 639-3 does not have labels for nodes.  While this node can be labelled better, resorting to native labels which all sound the same for closely related languages is not the answer. (Taivo (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I would not defend Wikipedia article titles like “Anishinaabe” which are obscure to English-language users, I agree. This article should be called “Ojibwe language” and the articles on Ojibwe dialects should build out from this one; in this respect I would agree that “Ojibwe” is therefore a ‘macrolanguage’ a la ISO 639, i.e. a cover term for referring to the linguistic varieties that fall under it. Campell’s Ojibwa note (p. 153 of his book) is not very useful (e.g. ‘Salteaux’ (a misspelling) is incorrectly located in Ontario and Quebec)), and can’t summarize the dialect complexities found in Ojibwe (in a massive compendium of this sort it is easy to make minor mistakes evident only to nitpickers such as myself). A better source is J. Randolph Valentine’s U of Texas dissertation (Ojibwe Dialect Relationships, 1994), based on original field work.


 * Ives Goddard somewhere used the term ‘emergent languages’ to refer to the Ojibwe dialects, and that is about right – if they survive for another hundred years or so they will very likely be closely related but distinct languages (much like Munsee Delaware and Unami Delaware). Right now they are mostly still close enough to count as dialects of one language, albeit with varying degrees of mutual intelligibility. The organization and content of the Wikipedia articles should reflect this better than they do now.


 * Finally, just to add to the terminological mayhem I would point out that Algonquianists actively involved in the study of Ojibwe tend to use the English spelling “OjibwE” (as I have above) rather than the spelling “OjibwA” apparently used in the occasionally  maligned ISO 639 system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomeara421 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to sign! John  Jomeara421 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why "Potawatomi" was added, but I'm currently preferring to call the article Ojibwa-Odawa language. This is the wording that was used as well in the language classes I was given by a guy from Manitoulin who teaches the language in Toronto now.--Sonjaaa (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)