Talk:Ventureño language

For more information
For more information, you may contact Mr. T. Henry at chumash-at-timhenry-dot-org. A scholar by the name of Kenneth Whistler has also researched this language extensively. Contact information for him cannot be found at this time.

Page name
By Wikipedia convention, language articles usually have the name "X language", especially if the name of the language is an adjective or if the ethnic group speaking the language is known by the same name. If the tribe who spoke Ventureño are/were also called the Ventureño, then this article should be moved to Ventureño language. —Angr 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved it. There were already some incoming links to it anyway. —Angr 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Number system
Should mention that this language has possibly the most clearly attested base 4 counting system. I added something to Quaternary numeral system... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the expansion. I don't know anything about the language other than having access to the Native American Mathematics book article, so I didn't feel confident in starting such a section here... AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Table Changes
Postalveolar and palatal places of articulation are different. It is important to distinguish both places when a language has consonants at each, whether or not there are contrasting consonants with the same manner of articulation at both places. (See Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996 "The Sounds of the World's Languages" for a detailed description of all places of articulation.) It is important to distinguish between these two places for the following reasons:

(1) Some indigenous languages of the Americas DO have true palatal stops, such as Sierra Popoluca, and it obscures facts to list postalveolar (a.k.a. palatoalveolar) stops and affricates as palatal in languages where that is not the case

(2) The English 'esh' ('sh' as in 'ship') is not palatal; it is postalveolar (palatoalveolar). To list other languages as having an 'sh' sound at a different place of articulation makes them appear unnecessarily (and inaccurately) exotic.

(3) There are well-known languages with both postalveolar and true palatal fricatives -- compare German 'fisch' with 'ich'!

(4) There are languages with palatal, postalveolar, alveolar, and dental consonants (fricatives, affricates, stops) contrasting, such as White Hmong

Deseretian (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You bring up some excellent points, Deseretian. I would also add, in regards to Ventureño specifically, that there is one very significant reason to not include the palatal approximant with post-alveolar consonants. Or, rather, collapse the entire palatal place of articulation with the post-alveolar.


 * In Chumashan languages, the alveolar and post-alveolar fricatives and affricates participate in a phenomenon known as sibilant harmony (I won't go into the specifics of the harmony system here, but information on it can readily be found). There is even significant free variation between the two places of articulation outside of sibilant harmony. This indicates, on a phonological level, that the alveolar and post-alveolar places of articulation are closely related, and, to a certain extent, even interchangeable (although minimal pairs can easily be found that, on some level, the two places of articulaiton represent distinct phonemes).


 * At the same time, the dorsal fricative shows variation in place of articulation. In the Harrington data, one can find notes showing the pronunciation being anywhere from a palatal place of articulation to a uvualar place of articulation. This dorsal fricative indicates that the palatal, velar, and uvular places of articulation are all, for fricatives, closely related, and, to the extent of the phonological system, interchangeable.


 * Since the palatal approximant [j] shows no variation in place of articualtion outside of the palatal region, there is no indication that it has any affiliation with either the post-alveolar or velar places of articulation. Since any other place-of-articulation relationship is indeterminant, there is no good reason to include [j] with the post-alveolars over the velars, and vice versa. To that end, it is best to leave [j] in it's own place of articulation. Alaquwel (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

number table
In the table of number-words, it's not visually obvious what goes with what. I'm going to redesign it.


 * The numbers 1–16 exhibit certain characteristics which are different from the method of counting from 17 to 32.

It seems to me that the break is at 12, not 17. Where the construction of a number-phrase is transparent, should we insert a breakdown, or count on the reader to spot the pattern? —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 12 = 3 × 4
 * 13 = 3 × 4 + 1
 * 15 = 1 less than [16]
 * 17 = 16 + 1 (and similarly for 21, 25, 29)
 * 18 = 2 less than 20 (and similarly for 22, 26, 30)
 * 19 = 1 less than 20 (and similarly for 23, 27, 31)
 * 32 = 2 × 16

"Buenaventura language" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Buenaventura language. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"San Buenaventura language" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect San Buenaventura language. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)