Talk:Purépecha language

Map
I have included a map which I think improves the article. Unfortunately, I do not know how to place it properly. But I am sure, somebody here will be able to move it.Unoffensive text or character 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot for adding it!Maunus 12:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetization of the name, De Wolf
De Wolf is a name in the Dutch language; 'de' means 'the'. In Dutch these names are alphabetized under the 'De'. You can see for yourself at the online catalog of the library of the University of Leiden (where he earned his Ph.D.). http://catalogus.leidenuniv.nl/F/CNFQYM6Y8KYK8YD53H659QQ7RSU4191GL2X71NM2REL6BMUGTY-13778?func=find-e&adjacent=N&find_scan_code=SCAN_AUT&request=de+wolf+paul+p&local_base=LDN01W&x=22&y=7 If you search for "Wolf" instead of "De Wolf", you will be redirected. Dale Chock (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarascan/Purhépecha
I've moved the page back. Since the 1990es new studies have not used "Tarascan" as a descriptor for either the people or the language. Books like Campbell 1997 use Tarascan because it is based on old materials. The name is no longer in use and we shouldn't try to put it back in use by adopting 1980 as the cutoff date for WP:COMMONNAME.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Tarascan" is the common name, as already discussed. P'urhépecha is not even assimilated into English, and the spelling is not established. Campbell (2000) American Indian Languages uses 'Tarascan', and mentions Phorhepecha as the autonym, not P'urhépecha. ELL2 (2006) uses Purépecha when they bother to note it at all, as Tarascan (Purépecha), never just Purépecha, and that's across four articles. In GBooks (English) since 2000, 'Tarascan' is 10× as common as 'P'urhépecha'. Ngram shows that 'Purepecha' (not 'P'urhépecha') is gaining ground, but it's not there yet. It's 'Tarascan' per WP:COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not. You are citing old non-specialist literature. Every specialist publication since 2000 have used one of the versions of Purhepecha, which are partily dialectal and partially anmericanized (Puerepecha is the anglicized version of P'urhépecha). Campbell is from 1997 and is not specialist, Suarez is from 1983 and is less so. The most recent specialist source that uses Tarascan is Foster 1969.We have a precedent of using indigenous orthographies when dealing with indigenous languages that have them - Purhepecha does. You have not shown that this is the common name and you don't have consensus. Move the article back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is not a specialist encyclopedia, it is a general one, and so the non-specialist lit is relevant. The whole point of COMMONNAME is to use terms that people are familiar with. We don't even use people's legal names, but the names they are generally known by. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But we don't use the literature that is 20 years old or older to decide commonname - we use recent specialist usage. Not non-specialist usages that just mindlessley repeat what old lietarure did. And as I said we generally use endonyms where they have any currency at all just like we do with Mayan and North American languages - P'urhépecha is advocated by the only regulatory body for the language the 'P'urhépecha language academy. Now move it back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some recent specialist usages:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * We use autonyms when they are established in English. This one is not. It looks like it may get there some day, though perhaps not in this form, but it hasn't yet. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is fully established. Try to compare these google scholar searches "Tarascan language" and "P'urhepecha language". There are more hits for Tarascan but the first hit after 2000 comes on page 5. In P'urhepecha  language all the hits are post 2000. You are simply talking about something about which you have no expertise. Move the article back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You just contradicted your own argument. Tarascan goes back before 2000 because it's the established term. P'urhepecha is a neologism. The fact that it's recent doesn't make it the common name, which remains Tarascan, as your own GScholar search shows if you restrict it to hits since 2000 (58 hits to 8). Also, Purepecha is more common than P'urhepecha (23 to 8); when you seach for "P'urhepecha language", GScholar even asks if you mean "Purepecha language". — kwami (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because Purepecha and P'urhepecha (and Phorhe or phorhepecha) are variants of the only currently valid name of the language. It is not a aneologism it is the establuished name. You re wrong and you are editwarring. You cannot today publish an article in a respectable journal using the word Tarascan (except for the precolumbian political unit) Move the article back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sources all date since 2000, yet you claim it is not a neologism? Once again, you contradict yourself. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is hardly my fault that you cannot grasp the difference between a neologism and an endonym that is adopted as the official and common name during a process of de-colonization, and reintroduction of respect for indigenous languages in academia and politics. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a neologism regardless. To the extent that it's assimilated into English at all, it's a new word. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
 * Are you always this peevish when people disagree with you? — kwami (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was playing nice before you editwarred and refused to follow policy, remember? Now find someone else who agrees with you or just leave well enough alone. Also someone who pretends to know about linguistics should be able to distinguish a neologism from a loan word. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your disregard for truth when making accusations suggests you were not playing nice to begin with.
 * Since I'm only pretending to know about linguistics, why should I know what a neologism is? But I think you are s.o. who actually does know s.t. about linguistics, so I'd expect you to understand that loan words start out as neologisms. But then I'd expect you to know what words like "again" mean, so maybe I expect to much. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But you can use it for the language in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2006)? — kwami (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about the version of ELL I have access to have no entry on either Tarascan or Ourhepecha in any of its spellings - nor are they mentioned in the index. If they have it is clearly in a non-speacialist article by an author who is no upto date with current usage in Indigenous Mesoamerican languages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I found it in the article on mexican languages - which is based on Suarez 1983.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's found in four articles, two as 'Tarascan' and two as 'Tarascan (Purepecha)'. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find where you had said you were okay with the common English spelling of the endonym, Purépecha, so I moved it there as a more accessible variant. (Not sure if we should retain the acute, but that isn't much of an accessibility issue.) — kwami (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarascan language
Intredasting, I've always read about it as Tarascan language and Tarascan people, even thought people themselves have changed their names. Shouldn't language be left for the historical reason as Tarascan, like Persian/Farsi or Hebrew? Never heard of Purepecha language before. This way people would be less confused, like they're with Nahuatl (Aztec) or Quechua (Incan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.140.93 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we got into a fight over this in the previous thread. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Spurious precision
Do we really need a discussion to agree that it's idiotic to say there were 58,299 speakers in 1960, as if anyone knew the exact number and there were no births or deaths that year? — kwami (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you check if the source really says 58,299? Eldizzino (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hardly matters. Even if it does, the statement is false. — kwami (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

State was Tarasca, not Purépecha
Also, the state was Tarasca, not Purépecha, right? — kwami (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a state of the people, that are called Purépecha in Wikipedia and called Tarascan/Tarasco/Tarascan Indians by other sources. I read "Tarascan state" as state run by Tarascan people and having Tarascan culture. In Wikipedia the term Tarascan, which is reported to have pejorative connotations, has been voted down for the language and for the people, see Purépecha people and Purépecha language. So, the same rule can be applied to the state. Eldizzino (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's the Tarascan state, just like the Aztec and Inca empires. It would be OR to rename them the Nahuatl and Quechua empires just because someone objects to the name. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources? Eldizzino (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Where are yours? You're the one making the unsupported claim. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)