Talk:Powhatan language

"The late" is unnecessary
Adding "the late" to the names of deceased individuals is rather silly and unencyclopedic. If we want to mark Dr. Rudes as "late", then we also need to mark every other name in this article with "the late" because they are all deceased. No disrespect to Dr. Rudes, he was a good scholar, but we don't single out one dead man to the exclusion of all others. Read any other encyclopedia and you will not see "the late" anywhere. --Taivo (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"forced under duress"
This is saying the same thing twice - if you're forced to do something, it's under duress by definition. Just omit "under duress".213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Issues with the article
I'm not entirely clear on the history of this article, but in any case, it has numerous flaws. It uses an orthography that is nowhere to be seen in Siebert's reconstruction, which I'm not even sure any editor of this page has read, considering how deviant the content is from his own conclusions. Numerous inaccuracies can be found at every turn, from the number of glosses known for the language (Strachey records well over 1000 in his manuscript, and Smith over 100 in his "few words," not counting the other words for animals and plants he gives when describing the native wildlife.

Historical phonological changes
This section occurs twice. As well, the evidence for PA *e becoming Powhatan /a/ initially is nonexistent. William Strachey [1955] writes vspevwh for “aboue.” Obviously related to PA *ešpe·wi “it is high up,” but /a/ is uncommonly written with v/u, especially word-initially. The orthographic v here instead represents Powhatan’s general realization of *e as /ə/ instead; compare PEA *əspēw of the same meaning. Word final vowel deletion is correct, however. Goddard (1980) also refutes PA *θ and *t falling together in Powhatan, /r/ derived from PA *r and from PA *θ are both spelled with r, tt, ht, and (s)s, instead representing a devoicing which was variously heard by the English as [t], [s], and [r]. (This is corroborated by David Pentland in Does Eastern Algonquian Really Exist? (1979). PA *ši·ʔši·pa is not attested (as far as I know) in Powhatan texts, the word Siebert [1975] gives as cognate is more accurately written as tsshehip “a Bird,” which does not resemble the PA form at all, and instead appears . The expected Powhatan reflex would be */ši·hši·p/, but this is never directly recorded. Powhatan reflects a falling together of *xC, *hC, and *ʔC as /hC/ in plosives, presumably this occurred in fricatives as well, as /hs/ not /ss/—though there is something to be said that it is written as "ss" much more than any other /hC/ cluster is written with a geminate consonant.

Phonology
The consonants are mostly accurate, though it’s missing /kʷ/ (← PEA *kʷ, which could occur in environments no other *Cw “cluster” could, so much more obviously a phoneme than in PA, ← PA *kw). This is plainly evident in words like vſqwauſum “a Bitch” /əskʷe·hsəm/ ← PEA *əθkʷēhθəm ← PA *eθkwe·ʔθemwa “bitch” or qwannacut “a Raynebow” /kʷənahkʷat/ ← PEA *kʷənaHkʷat ← PA *kenwaxkwatwi “it is a long cloud,” etc. (PA *kenw- "long" metathesized in PEA; medial *-axkw- "cloud"; II final *-at-w-i; this also shows the variance of / and  for /kʷa/). Throughout the article, the symbol  is used, which in earlier versions denoted this consonant, despite it being taken out of the phonemic inventory later. The vowels given are quite odd. Siebert gives no phonetic indication of the realization of the vowels beyond the symbols he uses for them, I don’t know who decided to put them in there—but there isn't really any basis for the values given Additionally, the same Goddard paper supports the merging of *i/i· & *o/o· to *ī and *ō in PEA, which is also supported by the Powhatan lexicon. Both PA *i and *i· are spelled with ij, a clear indication of length in Strachey’s writings (as opposed to "y", which was used for short "i", like "yt" for "it").

Grammar
The noun endings are all accurate except for the inanimate plural, which was actually /-ar/ instead (probably). This could be devoiced as said above, and the English (subconsciously influenced by the English plural -s + recognized as a distinct morpheme and so spelled consistently) misheard it as [s]. The verb conjugations mostly look alright, though the plural AI conjugations are still somewhat unclear. The 1s → 2s circumfix was |kə—ər| instead, ← PEA *kə-ər (compare Unami Delaware kə-əl) ← PA *ke-eθe, illustrated in Kenneauntor "I vnderstand you", from the PA root *no·nt+aw- "hear what was said" (TA). Also, “You cut his hair,” recorded by Strachey as cummundgum “to Cut the hair of a mans head” is etymologically unclear, as it looks like TI inflection, despite the verb (and gloss) being TA. The 2nd singular imperative was /-r/, actually recorded as such in the lexicon. Strachey’s mecher “to eate” (= “eat you!” as /mi·či·r/, PA *mi·čiro) and passaquear “to rise vp” (= “arise you!” /pasəkʷi·r/, PA *pasekwi·ro). Keassakmes for “I feed thee” is completely inaccurate, the actual word was cuttassamais “a Begger” /kətahšamər/ “I feed thee” ← PA *ketahšameθe “id.” This is given outright by Siebert himself (phonemicization different; 1975:292,340), so I really do not understand how you can corrupt it to this level.

Sources Used
Goddard, Ives. “Eastern Algonquian as a Genetic Subgrouping.” Papers of the 11th Algonquian Conference, ed. William Cowan, 1982, pp. 143—158.

Harrington, John P. “The Original Strachey Vocabulary of the Virginia Indian Language.” Anthropological Papers, no. 46, 1955, pp. 189—202.

Siebert, Frank Jr. "Resurrecting Virginia Algonquian from the Dead: The Reconstituted and Historical Phonology of Powhatan." Studies in Southeastern Indian Languages, ed. James Crawford, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1975, pp. 285—453.

Smith, John. "Travels and Works of Captain John Smith." ed. Edward Arber and A.G. Bradley, Edinburgh: John Grant, 2 vols., 1910.

Lenape Talking Dictionary., http://www.talk-lenape.org/. Accessed April 16, 2022.

Pentland, David. "Does "Eastern Algonquian" Really Exist?" Algonquian Linguistics 4(4), pp. 36—41.

96.248.77.79 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)