Talk:Somali language/Archive 2

Protected edit request on 18 May 2017
In note [39]:

the URL for the link is dead. I looked on the internet archive, but all past archives are password-protected.

The URL should at the very least be tagged with.

But more to the point I can't find any evidence that a paper by this title by this author ever existed. I can only find information about the 1954 paper by Andrzejewski. The wikipedia page for Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi lists:


 * Denis Sinor, ed. (August 1954). "Is Somali a tone-language". Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Congress of Orientalists. Cambridge: London Royal Asiatic Society: 367–368.

But that refers to Andrzejewski (1954), just not by name.

I propose deleting the entire sentence: "Abdullahi (2000), the most recent work exclusively on the subject, proposes that Somali is not a tonal language.", since there's no evidence for it. Plus, "most recent" shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia as new works can arise all the time. Umimmak (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Most recent is indeed inapt. However, per Linguist List, the analysis does exist. It was presented at the 5th International Conference on Afroasiatic Languages . Soupforone (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well it wasn't included in the proceedings for that conference, so can we refer to a source that wasn't published and hence is unverifiable? Umimmak (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That apparently contains selected papers from the conference, so that's probably why it isn't in there but is on the Linguist List program. Soupforone (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay sure but an unpublished conference talk is unverifiable for the readers and editors of wikipedia. There isn't even a way to verify if he thought it was or wasn't a tone language, let alone what his analysis was. Umimmak (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Frid indicates essentially the same thing, so the phrase should probably link instead to his analysis . Soupforone (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if a bachelor's degree thesis is notable, but it's at least verifiable. If we were citing lots of papers in the debate then sure, but I'm not sure a 26-page BA thesis from over 20 years ago is important enough to be the sole viewpoint represented in the article. Umimmak (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The tone-accent analysis is actually from Hyman; Frid just alludes to it. Anyway, G. L. Kapchits works alright. Soupforone (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to have a statement about Hyman 1981 in that section -- that's also the source reference #38 refers to about the topic. But I'm not sure about Kapchits 2005 since it's not about phonology and just defers to Hyman. Umimmak (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The tone-accent analysis itself is okay . Soupforone (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at by calling it "okay". Hyman `1981 is an important paper in this discussion and it should be mentioned, but if we have a source saying there's a debate we should have sources representing various viewpoints. Umimmak (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that there are two main theories on this language's phonological system: whether it is a tonal language (the old theory), or whether it is a pitch accent language (the currently dominant theory). Both are already noted. The second was just attributed to that password file, but it should point instead to its originator Hyman. Soupforone (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If Hyman (1981) is the currently dominant theory then it being the currently dominant theory should be stated and sourced. But it's unclear to me that that the dominant theory -- it seems that Hyman (2009)  seems to go against Hyman (1981) and calls for phonologists to not classify languages as "pitch accent languages" -- Somali included -- and Hyman (2006)  says Somali is a language with tone and without a stress accent. At some point the debate isn't even about the facts of Somali phonology but rather about what it means to be a tone language or not. Umimmak (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Unsure what is being requested. Please continue discussing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Umimmak, what Hyman means is that accents in the language are properties of morae, not of syllables as in actual tonal languages. That is, it is a pitch accent/tone accent language. This is why he indicates (2009) that this language is "far from anyone's ideal or prototypical tone system", and that "while other systems analyzed as pitch-accent clearly combine stress and tone, Somali and Japanese are best summed up by the following: "A pitch-accent system is one in which pitch is the primary correlate of prominence and there are significant constraints on the pitch patterns for words..."". Please see pitch accent for the difference. Soupforone (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But he concludes: "The need for a third category of pitch-accent has not been established, and in any case, would seem more interpretive than demonstrable. [...] we would do well to avoid using the term ‘‘pitch-accent” as a catch-all in favor of direct reference to the properties of what we all recognize to be a diverse collection of intermediate word-prosodic systems." And in Hyman (2001) he defines "tone language" in a way that was written in order to include Somali: "I propose that the final definition of tone be as follows: 'A language with tone is one in which an indication of pitch enters into the lexical realization of at least some morphemes.' The wording in this definition intentionally bypasses a problem which could arise if we required the pitch feature or features to be present lexically." In that same paper he writes "Although these are commonly referred to as 'pitch-accent' or 'tonal accent' systems, note that Somali and Tokyo Japanese — to which these terms have also been applied — are not included. (They are instead tone systems whose tones are severely restricted in terms of distribution.)" So it seems misleading to cite Hyman as someone who claims Somali isn't a tone language but is rather a pitch accent. Umimmak (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Le Gac indicates that "regretting his own 1981 proposal, [Hyman 2007] claims that Somali is, in fact, a restricted tone system in which the high pitches are the phonetic realizations of H tones." Nonetheless, Le Gac acknowledges that "since [Hyman 1981]'s seminal paper, Somali has usually been considered to be a tonal/pitch-accent language". Therefore, it would make sense to point instead to the Saeed analysis for the pitch accent. Soupforone (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Saeed just notes Somali has a restricted tone system and then just mostly defers to Hyman 1981 and Banti 1988's analyses.


 * We have a source saying there's a debate, and Saeed also says "The behaviour of tone in relation to accent or stress has been a  difficult issue in Somali grammatical description." Given that, I don't think it makes sense to just pick one source and present that as  paper on the subject. I think what can be said is to say the uncontroversial facts: there are tonal minimal pairs, prosodic words can have at maximum one high tone, and the mora is the TBU -- I don't think there's a debate about any of those statements --  and then maybe provide citations to some of the important analyses of Somali tonology (e.g., Armstrong, Klingenheben, Moreno, Vycichl, Andrzejewski, Hyman, Banti, La Gac, etc...).


 * You seem to just want one reference there, and I think that could be okay, too, depending on how it's presented. But it's unclear to me what your criteria are for choosing which source to have. The La Gac paper you refer to seems to be a good recent paper on the topic, having come out just last year, and it provides references to past analyses, so that might be a good paper to have if we just want a single reference, and then tell the reader to read the lit review? I dunno, this conversation got a lot more involved than I had expected :) Umimmak (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

La Gac is an unpublished conference paper, so per the same criteria above as Frid, it is ineligible. We also can't make any general pronouncements as to which grammatical points are uncontroversial among linguists, or for that matter which grammatical analyses are important among linguists, without explicit linguistic assertions to that effect. With that established, Saeed 2004 indicates that-- "Somali has been described as a tonal accent language, which is an attempt to distinguish the tonal system from true tone languages like the West African languages Igbo or Ewe (and outside Africa, Chinese) on the on the one hand, and from pitch accent languages like Japanese on the other". This would go well after the wiki-phrase on the pitch accent/tone dichotomy since it explains the tonal accent phonological system. Soupforone (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But La Gac was published in the proceedings ? The main issue I had with Frid was that it was an undergraduate paper whose author didn't seem particularly notable in the field of Somali phonology. But people cite La Gac's work so that doesn't seem to be an issue. And when you say "We also can't make any general pronouncements as to which grammatical points are uncontroversial among linguists", well doesn't the article on Somali phonology basically already say what I was suggesting? Noted it's not up to us to decide which papers are notable, but Hyman 1981, La Gac 2016, and others I'm sure provide lit reviews -- can we defer to them and say that papers X and Y mentioned as background reading in the debate are A, B, and C? My worry about the Saeed quotation is that it seems to violate WP:WEASEL -- "Somali has been described as a tonal accent language", but it doesn't say by whom. And it also seems to me the article should cite something that's about tonology rather than something about information structure which briefly touches on tonology. In any event the article is editable again and I think we're both in agreement to remove the part about "the most recent work exclusively on the subject". Umimmak (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As indicated in the abstract, the focus of La Gac is actually its own tonal analysis. The paper also only appears in that conference's proceedings; it is little different in that regard to the Abdullahi work in the op, with neither conference paper having scholarly citations per Web of Science. The main difference is that La Gac was part of its conference's selected proceedings, whereas Abdullahi was part of its conference's program. Saeed 2004 is a conference paper too, but unlike the foregoing it at least has one scholarly citation. With that established, the pitch accent and tone language associations should probably point to Banti 1988 (rather than Hyman 1981 given his later wavering on tonality) and Andrezjewski 1954, respectively. Soupforone (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well fwiw, La Gac's other papers on the subject have been cited. I think perhaps it's just too recently published for articles to have cited it yet? But yeah those work. Umimmak (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok great. As per the above, I've removed the Abdullahi phrase, and pointed the pitch accent and tone language associations to Banti and Andrezjewski, respectively. Soupforone (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cable
This picture has nothing to do with Somali language page. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising and it should be removed. Knfr44 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained here, it's a news broadcast in the Somali language on Horn Cable Television, as described in the text. The caption is now generic too, so it's not advertising. Soupforone (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the somali language page. Is it so hard to understand? You might as well advertise CNN and NBC in English language page and see the reaction you get. Knfr44 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Knfr44. Every picture in which someone happens to be speaking in language X is not suitable for an article about language X. Pictures in a language article ought to be more directly related to the language than that, as are all the other illustrations in this article. See French language for more examples of pertinent images. All the images there have to do with the distribution of French speakers in the world or parts of it, or show visual examples of French to illustrate the language itself and demonstrate its official use in far-flung parts of the world. A photo of a woman sitting with something in her lap and with her mouth open, presumably because she's speaking, but with no evidence of the Somali language anywhere in the image, isn't a helpful illustration for a page on the Somali language. I wouldn't be so concerned about the logo if the photo were helpful here, but it isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Might've been a bit late here, but here goes.

HCTV is a widely recognised Somali speaking channel in the Somali world (and one of the only ones known) and so it would be considered a part of Somali culture. Emphasis on the words 'Somali speaking'. It's on a page about Somali Language. Even though they're very remotely related, it still makes some sense for it to be there. And no, if you put CNN or NBC on a English language page, it would make sense for the reasons listed above. Discussion closed. Axcii (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Somali 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/20130124010543/http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf to http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomali-media.so%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2F2014_05_01_Somali-Media-Mapping-Report.pdf

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) 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

2 names in months
Why there are two names for each month? Francesco Miracapillo (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Arabic
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT WRITING SOMALI IN ARABIC SCRIPT IS NOT THE SAME AS USING ARABIC ALPHABET ADAPTED TO SOMALI LANGUAGE. IS IT REALLY SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

I HAVE CHANGED THE ARABIC TEXT TO SOMALI, PLEASE DON'T CHANGE IT IF YOU KNOW SHIT ABOUT SOMALI.


 * Please see WP:CIV about cursing and WP:SHOUT for shouting. Moving on, the relevant Template:Infobox language indicates that the nativename parameter pertains to a "native or a second additional name". That would include the name for Somali in Arabic, which is an official language in both Somalia and Djibouti. Middayexpress (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm an native somali and I'm editing ur fuckiñg information Moutionsi (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Number of speakers
At present, the infobox reports that there were 16 million speakers of Somali in 2015, whereas Somali language reports approximately 36.6 million speakers in 2016. Both figures are sourced to Ethnologue. Does anyone have access to the source to check which of the two figures (if either) it supports? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have. "Total users in all countries: 18,638,730" - that is from the current online edition of the Ethnologue. Landroving Linguist (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article, Landroving Linguist. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)