User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage3

8 Venado
Compadre: La última corrección que hiciste es incorrecta: la buena es la primera. El personaje que acompaña a 8 Venado en el ritual es 4 Jaguar (su nombre calendárico está asociado a él en la parte inferior de la imagen), 13 Cocodrilo, año 7 Casa (arriba, junto al glifo del año) es la fecha en la que tienen lugar los sucesos descriptos. Saludos. Yavidaxiu, de es:WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.126.162 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bueno, te creo. Lo voy a corregir en seguida. Gracias. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 07:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reduplication in Nahuatl
Hey there Maunus. No great rush, but when you've the time would you be able to explain, for curiosity's sake, the grammatical function of reduplication in cases like ehēcatl (which Wimmer indicates is a redupl. from ehcatl). I gather that it can be used for forming plurals of possessed nouns (I think), but I don't see the application in this case? Does it have the function of an intensifier here, or..? Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no explanation for the reduplication in words like ehecatl to my knowledge. Some words in nahuatl can be seen to be an earlier reduplicated form of something we don't know what meant, because the unreduplicated form has since gone out of use. In the case of ecatl and ehecatl there is no apparent difference in meaning - although probably there once was. In the dialect of nahuatl that i am best acquainted with, that of Hueyapan, reduplication in nouns is used to form diminutives and to form words with a meaning of "similar but not quite..." e.g. from calle "house" cācalle "hut/shack", from iztac "something white" īiztac "something whitish/pale". This kind of redplication can be seen in some words of the classical language also eg. cōconētl "doll" from conētl "child".·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks v much, Maunus, most informative as always! --cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are in Nahuatl generally a number of words that always have a reduplication (ehecatl is such in many variants of Nahuatl, including Hueyapan, according to what Maunus says above), but whose meaning involves some kind of repetitive or replicational notion. Replication (which of course includes plurality of nouns) is a category that includes many of the meanings of Nahuatl reduplication (by no means all), and is extremely common worldwide. This is of course iconic: "jump, jump, jump" means "jump repeatedly" so naturally that you might expect to be able to do something similar in any language. Repetitivity (replication through time) is a perfectly normal meaning for Nahuatl reduplication on verbs. Some invariantly repetitive nouns also have it, e.g. tlatlaxistli 'a (bad) cough'; < tlatlasi 'to cough' (*tlasi). I think ehecatl is probably such, with the reduplication connected to the repeated gusts typical of wind. (The wind "blows and blows".) (Ehecatl is cognate with the verb eheca 'it (the wind) blow'.)


 * fwiw. --Lavintzin (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lavintzin. Makes a lot of sense, put that way. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Appreciate it. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Classical Nahuatl descendents
Hi Maunus- would appreciate your consideration of this recent edit to Classical Nahuatl, when you've a moment. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question at WP:RDL
Hi. There's a question concerning Nahuatl language at WP:RDL. Since you appear to be the best Nahuatl speaker around who is active, you might want to share your thoughts. Regards, Duja ► 10:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
For my blunt words at Dene Caucasian. Daniel de França 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tepehua and Totonac
Hi Maunus, how're you keeping? If you're around and have some time to spare at the moment, would appreciate your insights on the relation/distinction btw these, in concerns over a recent set of changes that I have highlighted over at Talk:Totonacan languages. I'd just reverted some edits to that article which (it seemed to me) eliminated Tepehua as a distinct linguistic grouping, which AFAIK it has good claims to be considered as such. I myself will be pretty much offline the next couple of weeks, but if you are checking in here during that period would be great if you could clarify what a general assessment position might be.

All the best for the NY, and (hopefully) will be seeing you around here in 2008! Saludos, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 05:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm doing well, although (or maybe for which reason) i'm not frequenting wikipedia as often as I have earlier. Totonac and tepehua are considered distinct languages by conservative linguists such as Lyle Campbell, linguists working with the languages like Carolyn MacKay and David Beck, by the Mexican government, by the Ethnologue and importantly by the speakers themselves. This should be more than enough to merit deparate mention of the Tepehua language within the Totonacan family. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop Editing Olmec Epigraphy Section
Manus You claim that the corrections to the Epigraphic section of Olmec alternative views is self promotion this is false. These changes were made in response to the elimination of the discussion of Leo Wiener's statement in support of a Mande origin for the Tuxtla statuette. Please explain how the piece is self promotion when its aim is to indicate the ancient origin of the Vai script, and the fact that earlier researchers noted an African origin for Mexican scripts.Clyde Winters (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Folktales iof
Did you mean Folktales of Mexico? --Geniac (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was what I mean yes. Actually I thought I had fixed that. Thanks for noticing. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 17:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
I noticed that you seemed to be bothered by the exchange you had at Afrocentrism, But, can you stop and pause and think about what you did for just a moment? First you brought up a very tired old argument about Afrocentrism being a "racialist" ideology. Although the sources don't support it, if you read the talk page you'll find that we've gone in circles about this. People keep making the same claim and they make it despite "knowing very little" about the subject. Then you brought up the whole "isn't Afrocentrism just black Eurocentrsim?" thing. No. It's not, it can't ever be for two reasons: historical circumstances, oppression, power and the fact that Afrocentrists have made a conscious decision NOT to be ethnocentric. Nonetheless, it see like every month or so someone stops by and makes this same naive complaint. And I use the word naive to describe how you admittedly only know a tiny bit about the subject.

The popular (naive) understanding among white Americans of what Afrocentrism is tends to be distorted. Why? They just don't know enough. And if a person can't be bothered to learned more than their edits run the risk of continuing to project these misconceptions, which are not supported by the sources on to the article. This article requires attention from people who have taken the time to read Afocentric works, read criticism and commentary etc. Please join us in trying to learn more about this topic and improving the article.

But, please don't try to tell everyone else what to do when you don't know much about the subject. Ok? futurebird (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry if the expression of my concerns seemed like "telling everyone what to do", that was certainly not my intention. However I was aware the the view I expressed was not the one held by many of the editors, I was also aware that other editors in the past have expressed similar concerns. My reason for repeating them was to encourage a move towards an article which adresses those concerns in an informative manner so that in the future you and like-minded editors can experience a wikipedia (and maybe even a world) where people are more informed about what afrocentrism is, and isn't or about what it can be. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, in that case no hard feelings. futurebird (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk: Afrocentrism
It occurred to me that you might not revisit my talk page, so I've posted my response to your note here.

I'm not terribly interested in exchanges of opinion; I thought I made that clear. However, exchanges of useful information are always welcome. The "hostility" and "condescension" you write of weren't intentional, but I suppose that's one way one could interpret my comments. I'm simply weary of those who seemingly and often admittedly know very little about something proffering their opinions and then proceeding to POV-push and edit-war their mis/disinformation into articles on that same subject matter. I glanced -- and I mean that, glanced -- at something you wrote about Van Sertima, and I found your characterization of the criticism of his work far too general, absolute and somewhat lacking in documentation. Van Sertima long ago admitted some errors in his interpretation of historical data. Such things are normal in the practice of history in attempting to patch together some semblance of meaning/coherence from artifacts and data related to the prehistory of humankind, and findings and postulations often are revised after the fact by those who originally avdanced them or by those who come after them. Still, Van Sertima's work was far from devoid of documentation, as at least your first edit (I skimmed no further) states.

All that aside, an in-depth discussion of Van Sertima's work is best placed elsewhere -- perhaps in an article devoted to the "Pre-Columbian African presence in the New World." In fact, I would venture to say that much of the article loses its way in treating Afrocentricity only in the practice of history and little else, when such certainly is not the entirety of its scope. Your addition, IMO, merely contributes to this unfortunate trend.

Finally, if your intent is to contribute objectively and positively to a balanced article, then we'll have no problem, and your contributions are more than welcome. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already read the comment on your talk page, but thank you for the consideration.·Maunus· · ƛ · 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Olmec alternative origin speculations
Maunus, per your request, I went thru the "Epigraphic evidence" section of this article and cleaned it up. In particular, I removed Dr. Winters' references to Dr. Winters. Right now, it consists of 3 sentences that sum up the contentions, are pretty straightforward, and are properly linked. Let me know if this suits you, Madman (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at Maya Hero Twins??
Maunus, there seems to be some confusion at Maya Hero Twins concerning the language names. Would you be able to look thru that article to ensure that any language or cultural names are the (Wikipedian) standard Maya language or cultural names?? Thanks, Madman (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocola
Thanks!Jonathan (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest

 * Good work, Maunus. Congrats!  Madman (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Germanic peoples
Brilliant! The image of the Tollund Man is well chosen, even if he theoretically could be non-Germanic (though I definitely doubt that would be the case). Really really well though compromise! Dylansmrjones (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: ASG
True, but one cannot assume good faith, when the editor makes similar changes on all articles related to germanic people and their culture. I checked _before_ doing anything and as you can see from the person's discussion page and contributions it is not the first time, the user has done so, nor will it be the last, I'm afraid. I assumed good faith in the beginning, but the sheer number of unconstructive, unsourced and factually incorrect changes made it quite clear this was way beyond anything covered by ASG.Dylansmrjones (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think actually he may have a point - but his poor command of the English languages obscures it a lot. I have reverted his edits and taken it to the talk page. Lets try to talk us into a solution.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IPA for Mariann Fischer Boel
Hi Maunus, I’ve seen on your user page that you are a native speaker of Danish and quite proficient in phonetics. Could you help me to provide a most precise possible IPA transcription of the name of the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel? Thanks in advance! C. ♒ 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try.·Maunus· · ƛ · 21:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that looks pretty accurate—as far as I can judge. Still, I have a couple of questions:
 * 1) Would it be correct to pronounce a vocalized /r/ in the first name, something like []?
 * 2) The article on Danish phonology says that corresponds to []. Do you mean the same sound, just transcribing it differently as []?
 * 3) Is there any rule giving [] and not [] for  in the last name? Or is that an unpredictable irregularity? C. ♒ 15:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my pronunciation there are no relics of the /r/ - and i don't think there normally would be in this sequence.
 * You are right that the (sch) should be transcribed as [] - that is the convention for danish although I am unsure how accurate it is in this case.
 * I don't think there are any fixed rules for determining when oe is [ø] and when its [o:].·Maunus· · ƛ · 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks again! C. ♒ 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nahua man of Morelos.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Nahua man of Morelos.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl
please quote in the Talk Page the citation you offer from "Boone, p. 68" 70.248.202.145 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote was not originally added by me, but I can provide quotes to the same effect. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Aztecs considered Quetzalcoatl the "supreme god" of their pantheon.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment at the Talk Page for Quetzalcoatl, which I believe provides "...reason ...to believe that the Aztecs considered Quetzalcoatl (a "superior god") in their pantheon." So far, I've not asserted that Quetzalcoatl was regarded as the "supreme god" in the Aztec pantheon. I'm asserting that his was a "superior position" in the pantheon, and would like to know if and how Boone disagrees. 70.248.202.145 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That map is not my map
Maunus, thanks for your comments on my talk page. It took me a moment to realize that the map you're referring to is not my new map. I've posted both of them up to my talk page. As long as I'm posting here, would you be able to standardize the names at Maya Hero Twins?? I don't feel I know enough to do this. Keep up the good work. Madman (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your suggestion about my email :) (Taivo (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Nahuatl == ==

I see from the page history you've been doing good things to the Nahuatl page. This is really really good. I read through most of it and only made one minor edit for grammar. I have two minor quibbles about points made on the page, neither of which is key to the article and I'm not asking for changes. Just something to think about and discuss.

The first quibble I have is with the illustration of the distribution of Nahuatl. I know you've been faithful to your sources and my real issue is with your sources. I really have doubts that Nahuatl was ever the native language of any group in Honduras, though I'm certainly aware of both the archaeological and linguistic literature that's tried to argue this position, based on a slim bit of misunderstood data. I have no doubt it was used as a lingua franca by many groups across a wide area of Honduras. The Toqueguas, down on the atlantic coast of northwestern Honduras and Guatemala were polyglot and spoke a Chol dialect, Yucatecan, Nahuatl, and named their landscape in Lenca. What was their native language? This, BTW, was the main group Cortes encountered, and spoke with, in Honduras. The only evidence for Nahua speakers in Olancho is entirely based on some part of the population that used nahuatl day names as personal names. Lots of people who otherwise spoke some other language as their native language used nahua day names.

I also have quibbles with the notion that Nahuatl was a prestige language in mesoamerica, but I do understand and have read your sources for that statement.

Thanks for all your hard work in turning this article into a good, clear text.Rsheptak (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about the Nahuatl as "lingua franca" thing for awhile - It seems universally accepted to be the fact but I don't remember what kinds of evidence there is for this notion, and I have been considering investigating it. But I believe that the Nahuatl speaking groups of Honduras were soldiers coming with the Spanish and then settling and blending in. I don't remember my sources saying that there were any pre-conquest Nahua presence in Honduras (except maybe for some stray Pipiles out of their area). ·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * there are two settlements of Nahuatl speaking Spanish allies in Honduras...both called Mexicapa. One was a barrio of Comayagua, the other was a barrio of Gracias a Dios. Rsheptak (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. also a good addition to the article. I have however trimmed it a bit since it was a little to specific for the topic of the Nahuatl language. Could you supply a source for that also? - that would help keep the article verifiable. Also out of interest, do you know for a fact that there were no other Nahua settlements in Honduras than those two?·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my hurried edit. I'll check my bibliography and add a source in the next couple of days.  I don't know for a fact there aren't other nahuatl speaking indian allies settlements in Honduras, but I've not seen any primary sources that either suggest, or support it.  I won't rule out the possibility that more could be found.  Naco isn't one, though, and neither is Olancho, nor is Trujillo.  That I can be sure of, having read the documentary sources.  Nahuatl as a lingua franca, yup.  Some elites using Nahuatl day names as personal names, yup, but no indication that that's what their language was.  That's what there's support for in the documents, and the archaeology.  The last 3 indians in Naco in the 1580s were "indios principales" and all had Lenca names.


 * The settlement by Comayagua is gone by the end of the 16th century (by 1580 I believe) but the Gracias one continues to the present day, and uses their service to the Spanish Crown in the conquest as part of a justification for why they should not be treated like indios in the 18th century.


 * I do keep my eyes out for these nahuatl allies of the spanish because I have a friend doing a dissertation on the Sonora garrisons of Tlaxcaltecs that staffed the missions. He always appreciates notice of others of that kind, and I expect by now has enough to write a book about them.  Its a fascinating topic. 136.152.132.181 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the idea of Nahuatl as a lingua franca, its not new. It permeates the pochteca trade literature, for example.  Doña Marina and the other nahuatl speaking translators were understood over a wide area.  Often, earlier literature has taken this to mean the locals were nahuatl (see Strong's article on Naco and Nito for an example) rather than they could understand and communicate in Nahuatl.  There are even mentions of the people having funny accents or speaking a barely understood form of it. 136.152.132.181 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a good reference that in the course of discussing the role of Spanish in pre-19th century America also covers the roles of Nahuatl, Quechua, and Guarani. It's very enlightening and relies on a lot of early documentation:  Nicholas Ostler.  2005.  Empires of the Word:  A Language History of the World.  New York:  Harper.  The relevant chapter is 10:  "Usurpers of Greatness:  Spanish in the New World."  After the Spanish arrived, Nahuatl was quite readily adopted as a standard language of Mesoamerican Catholicism, as well as being a common language of the courts and administration.  Indeed, the first book printed in Mexico City was the Breve y más compendiosa doctrina christiana in 1539 which is written in Nahuatl.  This was followed in 1546 by Doctrina christiana breve traduzida en lengua Mexicana and in 1547 by Arte de la lengua mexicana and Vocabulario de la lengua mexicana (Ostler 346).  Nahuatl had spread before the arrival of the Spanish, of course, but the Spanish cemented its hold in Mesoamerica. (Taivo (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
 * LOL. Sorry, but I wrote the above comment before I actually read the Nahuatl languages article :p  Sorry if it just tells you what you already knew. (Taivo (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
 * No worries. :) ·Maunus· · ƛ · 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Southern Maya Area
Maunus, you are correct to say that what's missing in the entry thus far is coverage of later times in the Classic and Postclassic ("Epiclassic" is a somewhat controversial term, and probably applies best to Yucatan). I will make an effort to supply this as soon as I get some other things off my plate. Jonathan K1938

Tzitzimime
Manus your picture is copyrighted and comes from a modern artist. The real Tzitzimime picture is found here. Your image comes from here. Do you see the constrasting difference here? I'm not sure why any other Wikipedians have yet to catch this. Xuchilbara (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears you are absolutely right. I am sorry about that - but we'll just put up the other one. Thanks for noticing.·Maunus· · ƛ · 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
Hi Maunus, I just wanted to thank you for your helpful and constructive comments at the Talk:List of indigenous peoples page. When you do have the time to look over the sources, I would of course be very interested in hearing your response. Also, if you have any questions, or would like to see other sources that describe the distinctions between the different sub-sets of Palestinian society, do not hesitate to ask. It's a subject that I have extensive personal and academic knowledge of, and I would be most happy to oblige. T i a m u t talk 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been remiss (a Barnstar)

 * Wow. Thanks, Madman. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Tlaloc
You refer to the people of Mexic as "Aztecs". Isn't this a modern term of dubious correctness? Souldn't they be referred to as Mexicans. You say that "Tlaloc" is derived for "Tlalli" - earth. I've read that his full name is "Tlalocatecutli" - literally the lord of Tlalocan. Tlalocan being a watery paradise beneath the earth. How can you translate this as anything related to a cave since the word for a cave is "oztoc"?Senor Cuete (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * Mexicans are the people who live in modern day mexico. The Mexica however were a Nahua tribe who lived in Tenochtitlan and were one of the tribes that formed what has become known as "the Aztec empire". I don't particularly like the use of the term "Aztec" because it is vague and misleading - however we have had many large discussio on this on pages related to Nahua peoples and "Aztec" culture and we have decided that it is the best known term in the english language to describe things having to do with the precolumbian Nahua peoples. As for the many interpretations of the name Tlaloc. Tlalocan means place of Tlaloc. Another name for Tlaloc is Tlalocantecuhtli "The Lord of Tlalocan" but since the name Tlalocan itself includes the name Tlaloc it is incorrect to say that Tlaloc is a shortening of Tlalocantecuhtli - rather Tlalocantecuhtli is a longer form of Tlaloc. The interpretation of "Tlaloc" as meaning "long cave" or "road beneath the ground" is given by Fray Diego Durán in his description of Aztec Gods. It is based in an interpretataion of the name as being tlal-o-c "earth-road-on" - the idea that it should be a long cave is an interpretation that we cannot know where he found. I have supplied that precise statement with a quotation to the source (Lopez Austins "Tlalocan Tamoanchan - places of Mist"). i am not done with reshaping the article and I will supply more quotations. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not the place to discuss naming conventions. There are several good reasons to retain the use of the word "Aztec" (including WP:Naming) even though it is not completely correct. Madman (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mesoamerican calendars
Boy, my offer to put together a graphic was from a year-and-a-half ago! Wikipedia has a long memory. : )

But, yes, I would love to. I was thinking of either an "interlocking wheels" approach (something like this) or of a more chartlike/building block approach, with colors. I'm bogged down at work right now, and probably can't address this until April, but I can help out then.

Thanks for thinking of me. I am glad to see that you are churning out quality articles at a fast clip. As mentioned, my output has dried up a bit lately, being restricted to vandalism reversion with an occasional map or graphic. Madman (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to Mesoamerican Calendars. This article is pretty bad and repeats information in the other articles about the Maya calendar, Long Count Calendar, etc. Also it repeats information in the same article. You comment that there's "no need to correct something that isn't wrong". If you want to use the phonetic spelling of "coatl" as "cohuatl" that's OK but it's not pronounced that way in the areas of Mexico where I've been and listened to Nahuatl, such as Cuetzalan, Puebla or in literature about the Mexicans, place names, etc. As for the addition of the zero date of the Mesomerican calendars in Julian, the Julian calendar was in use until 1582. It really is important to carefully state what calendar you are using when discussing the Mesoamerican calendar because astronomers, historians and in fact everyone except mayanists uses the historically accurate Julian calendar rather than the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is important because the study of the maya calendar is an interdisiplinary one which for example includes astronomy. The use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar has caused a huge amount of confusion for people studying the Mesoamerican calendars and obviously continues to do so today. In addition the paragraph entitled "52 year cycle" is absolutely wrong in its assertion that the calendar round wasn't wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. Furthermore the calendar was never reset for political purposes. An example of this is that the Aztec calendar Tonalpohualli is consistent with the Tzolk'in which was 1 Chicchan on the date of the conquest of the Aztec empire. The year given for the conquest in the article is a year bearer (starting date of the Haab'). This is the only aspect of the mesoamerican calendar that is inconsistent. There were several year bearer systems in post-classic civilizations. This whole paragraph should be removed. The Long Count IS a modified base 20 system because there are only 18 Winals, not 20.Senor Cuete (talk)Senor Cuete

2nd opinion sought...
Hi Maunus. If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at this newly created article to see if you think there's anything here that could usefully be salvaged, say by transposing to existing articles. I'm at a loss to see how this can be turned into a valid and well-defined article on the subject professed by its title- or even, whether this subject warrants a separate article at all. I've proposed it for deletion via WP:PROD, but possibly I'm becoming too jaded after looking thru bunches of inauspicious new article creations. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan: care to join me?
Hi there. You might like to take a look at what I've just done at Talk:Tibetan_grammar and see if you feel inspired to chip in. Best wishes, Alan --A R King (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan. I am afraid I know nothing about Tibetan language or culture, and anyway I am currently putting all my work into making Nahuatl a FA. Maybe once that is over I will get some time to look at it although I will be thoroughly out of my element.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have been out of it, but what is the current state of your drive for the Nahuatl article and is there anything you think I can do to help at this (I assume late) stage in the game? Alan --A R King (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to look it over and make any suggestions you might have at the FAC review. I have added a lot of content today that I think is pretty good, and I hope we are in the closing phases, but a copyedit for lnguage and style is always welcome (being a nonnative english speaker theres always room for improvement)·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For the copyedit of Glistrup. I did intend to try doing so myself, but it is quite unlikely that I would have done it as well as you did. Hemmingsen 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome.·Maunus· · ƛ · 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
Hi Maunas. Thanks for your note about the proposal for List of indigenous peoples. I would be happy to brainstorm on how to structure the list format, but you will have to give me a little time. I'm deep into researching material for Queen Mavia, Moses (bishop) and the Tanukh right now (some fascinating pre-Islamic Arab history I wasn't previously familiar with). As soon as I finish fleshing those articles out a bit more, I'll return to the discussion there with some ideas on how to proceed. I will however keep an eye out for any your suggestions, so don't hesitate to go ahead and float some proposals on your own. Thanks for reminding me of that. Happy editing!  T i a m u t talk 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Demise
Your comment interested me in the verb "to demise" and I have replied on my talk page. I (English, living in Scotland) don't recall ever hearing or reading demise being used as a verb meaning "die" but it is, of course, perfectly commonly used as a noun. Maybe historians use it as a verb. I have occasionally come across the legal meaning "convey" but even this sounds archaic to me. I wonder whether in Neilston it arrived as a neologism (am I using the right word here?), the author having created it as a verb from the noun (or someone he was referring to having done so). Even though I'm rather pedantic on these things, I am happy to use the verb "to google" because it is so useful and unambiguous. It was perfectly clear in Neilston what "demised" meant. I see you are a linguist and a highly international one at that so I'm happy for you to suggest otherwise on any of this. The best English speaker I ever came across was from Denmark! Thincat (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopi Dictionary
I am more than a little annoyed at your moving and nominating for deletion a created article within 5 minutes of its creation. This behaviour is disrepectful, arrogant and counterproductive. It is standard wikipedia naming policy that articles on books be located at the full title of the work which in this case is "Hopi Dictionary : Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect With an English-Hopi Finder List and a Sketch of Hopi Grammar". This is where the article should be located. If for some reason the name should be shortened you should let someone with knowledge about the work find out which alternative title is preferable. I request that you promptly move it back to its original location and let me finish editing the article. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the article par WP:MOS, article title subsection, as the article's title was far over the 10 words soft limit for the article title. I originally tagged the other titles for R3 removal because i deemed it implausible that anyone would ever type the full name. In short: More went wrong here then went right, as in retrospect i could better have created some redirects to the original title, or changed the long title to a redirect to the short title name. My apologies for the inconvenience caused, and with kind regards, Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 09:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I supported your article at it's FAC page. HansHermans (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion
It not mythology. You do not call other peoples beliefs Mythology. It's offensive.--Angel David (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You removed a several links to articles that exist: namely the articles about Christian mythology, Buddhist mythology, Islamic mythology etc. If you feel offended by those articles' titles you should take that discussion at ttheir individual talk pages instead randomly redirect links to those pages to other pages. And for the record you are incorrect to assume that the term "mythology" necessarily has offensive connotations. But people will soon enough tell you that when you go to the correct fora to discuss it: namely the aforementioned article talkpages.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

FA congrats
Hey Maunus, congrats on the successful FA for Nahuatl! You are right, I had intended to revisit the FAC nom pg and clarify that while I obviously supported its nomination, I felt it better to recuse myself from actively doing so on grounds of my prior involvement with it. The nom actually went through more quickly than I expected, thought that with the backlog and all it'd take another week or two. Anyways, glad to see it (rightfully) pass, and look forward to its frontpg appearance, whenever that turns out to be. On to the next one!

There are a couple of mods I have been contemplating for the precolumbian section & Teo mentions in Nahuatl, will try to get these done asap. Nothing major, of course, just some tidy and attempted refinements. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes there is still room for improvement in the article - luckily I'd say.·Maunus· · ƛ · 05:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My congratulations too! Alan --A R King (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A belated but well-deserved congrats to both Manus and CJLL on the article's promotion. Thanks for bringing attention to this venerable language. — Zerida  ☥   06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And a hearty thanks for you for your diligent comments during the process!·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tlazocamati :-) — Zerida  ☥   06:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC) [[Image:WikiThanks.png]]

Image:Ah Mun.jpg
Hi Maunus, thanks for the GA review for Funerary art! i left a response on the article's talk; dunno if Johnbod or Ceoil have further thoughts.. as a tangent, do you think the image Image:Ah Mun.jpg would be appropriate for the Pacal the Great article? I'm a little surprised it isn't already there, so wanted to check before adding it. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very low quality and I am unsure if it would improve the article. Actually what I would do would be to request User:Madman2001 to do a line drawing of the iconography. He has done that with a great deal of luck before and the image would be a welcome inclusion in quite a few of the Articles on Mesoamerica and the Maya.Also it should be turned upright. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested in an RfC
Hi there, you don't know me, but I noticed your work in some FAs on languages and linguistics and wondered if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I'm aware that you might not know anything specific about the language concerned (which I don't either), but the content issue is more general. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have commented at the RfC and I am afraid I don't agree with your concerns.·Maunus· · ƛ · 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

an article you helped on is now a FA
Bezhin Meadow, that you helped out on, is now a Featured Article! Thanks for your help on it. Lawrence §  t / e  04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bibliographies - formatting question
I took your advice to heart, and will update Bezhin Meadow to that format when I have time. Would you mind peeking at User:Lawrence_Cohen/work/Toadstone/draft now though? I can't get it to visually format the way it looks on Nahuatl visually. Lawrence §  t / e  21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was stuck on, for the formatting changes. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

GA errors in articlehistory
Hi, Maunus; I corrected the errors in articlehistory] at Aztec to remove it from the ah error category. If you're not sure how to build article history (see Template:Articlehistory), it's OK just to leave a GA template on the page and wait for GimmeBot to do it correctly. If you do build an articlehistory, please scroll to the bottom of the page when you're done to see if the red error category is lit. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I didn't know how that worked, and I just tried it out.·Maunus· · ƛ · 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agglutinative language
I noticed that there is a citation needed on Nahuatl in Agglutinative language, and you seem to be the resident expert, do you have something for that? The context is Agglutinative languages tend to have a high rate of affixes/morphemes per word, and to be very regular[citation needed]. For example, Japanese has only two irregular verbs (and not very irregular), Nahuatl only two[citation needed], Luganda has only one (or two, depending on how 'irregular' is defined) and Turkish has only one. Georgian is an exception; not only is it highly agglutinative (there can be simultaneously up to 8 morphemes per word), but there are also significant number of irregular verbs, varying in degrees of irregularity. --AkselGerner (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that since it seems untenable. The whole paragraph smacks of OR and I think it should be removed if it is not sources soon.·Maunus· · ƛ · 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopi Dictionary
I just got around to reading the Hopi Dictionary article. It was very interesting--indeed, I did not know about the legal issues. Sounds like the types of things that Pueblo tribes do. I got my copy for free as a reviewer. You might want to mention whether or not the volume is available for purchase. The article implies that it is now impossible to obtain a copy. I notice that it is unavailable at Amazon.com. It's a good article, though. (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
 * It might be a good idea, but I don't know if it is available or not. It did come out in more than one edition but supposedly the remaining copies should have reverted to the Hopi tribe january first of this year. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl scheduled for Main Page appearance this month
Hi Maunus- you may already have seen, Nahuatl is slated to appear on the main page on May 13. Will u be around then? Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm off for Mexico on monday - internet acces isn't as predictable for me there as it is here. But it'll be protected so there shouldn't be too much of a problem I suppose.·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Dené-Yeniseian
I recently added the Dené-Yeniseian node to the infoboxes of Tlingit and Eyak, which I see you have reverted with the comment "revert: not yet widely accepted". Before you revert the remainder of my edits to languages in the Na-Dené family, could we please discuss what you would consider necessary for "wide acceptance"? Vajda's position received strong and diverse support when announced, and has yet to be forcefully challenged. --Peter Farago (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with Peter Farago here. The Dené-Yeiseian node has been nearly universally accepted by Athapaskanists and Yeniseianists after a conference held in February.  There was a major announcement in the Newsletter for the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of Americas that announced acceptance among Athapaskanists (and, by extension, all Americanists).  It's a "done-deal" now.  It has not appeared in published work yet because it is so new, but the names at the conference put the imprimatur on it--Johanna Nichols, Vajda, Michael Krauss, Jeff Leer, etc.  If Krauss and Leer and Nichols accept Dené-Yeniseian as a valid genetic unit, then everyone else will accept it. (Taivo (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
 * I reverted the Tlingit and Eyak articles back to include it. Since both the Na-Dene community and the Yeniseian community accept it as a valid genetic node, no one is going to challenge it, especially since Nichols' statistics lend a certain amount of support to it.  I've read the conference papers and they're solid--lexical, phonological, "exceptional", and morphological evidence--the Big Four of comparative work.  If the SSILA Newsletter states unequivocally, "Link Demonstrated between Na-Dene and Yeniseic" (SSILA Bulletin #264, 31 March 2008), then it's "widely accepted".  Johanna Nichols even wrote the article about the conference. Here are her exact words:  "Vajda's work has been well vetted.  In addition to Na-Dene specialists Krauss, Leer, and Kari, who have reacted favorably, the symposium was also attended by historical linguists Prof. Eric P. Hamp of the University of Chicago and Prof. Johanna Nichols of the University of California, Berkeley, both of whom announced their support for the proposed relationship, and by Bernard Comrie, Director of the Linguistics Department, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig and professor at UC Santa Barbara, who endorsed Vajda's methods.  Athabaskanist Prof. Victor Golla of Humboldt State University, Eurasianist Prof. Michael Fortescue of the University of Copenhagen, Yeniseicist Dr. Heinrich Werner of Bonn (formerly of Taganrog University, Russia), and Prof. Nicholas Evans (Australian National University) read the draft of Vajda's report and reacted favorably."  (I forgot that Hamp was there!  If Hamp says "Yes", there is no more discussion about the validity of the node.  It doesn't matter what language family you're talking about, when Hamp makes a comment at a conference EVERYONE is quiet and listens.) (Taivo (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
 * I have not yet seen reports that the aforementioned gentlepeople have accepted the evidence only that they have received it favourably. Only reports of their immediate reactions were given on the conference home page. I would prefer to let more time pass and let them review it in depth before adding it as such a tangible fact as the infobox make it seem. Also I removed it in the infoboxes because the articles still only mentioned it as a possibility and the manner of factishness of the infobox seemed like a contradiction. Up untill ow consensus among editors of the related articles has been to hold back and see some published responses before announcing it as fact. However if consensus can be reached on the talk pages of the related articles to add it I shall not object any further.·Maunus· · ƛ · 00:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it all comes down to what constitutes "acceptance". Getting a statement of fact in the SSILA Newsletter and a positive review from Eric Hamp, Johanna Nichols, and Michael Krauss (none of whom are "lumpers") is about as close to a stamp of approval as one really gets until the once-or-twice-a-decade publication on classification rolls out.  And given the history of Native American classification since Greenberg came along, the words "received favorably" is equivalent to "jumped for joy". (I was in the audience when Greenberg first presented his "Amerind" in public at an Americanist conference.  Mary Haas was sitting in the front row and the look of disbelief on her face was one for the ages.  Hamp wasn't there or else the question and answer period would still be going on.  Greenberg never presented it to an Americanist audience again.) Cheers  (Taivo (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Blwhorf.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blwhorf.jpeg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just addressed this Maunus. This i-dotting stuff really irks me.  Madman (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks madman. It bothers me as well.·Maunus· · ƛ · 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blwhorf.jpeg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Blwhorf.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder how they are able to find people who know all the words of English and all the rules of English grammar, but are completely unable to construct a comprehensible sentence of English? Ah, I know--law school.  (Taivo (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Hoatzin
Hi, I recalled this was a word initially derived from a mesoamerican language and I was hoping to get someone knowledgeable to place something in the article which is the current bird collaboration. Also, if you have any notes on cultural significance/depictions or folklore that would be marvellous to add in a folklore section at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move Julian the Apostate
Within a week, I am going post a new request to move the article. Please be ready to come in with support again. Thegreyanomaly (talk)

I have submitted the request to move the page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)