User talk:Sotho of the South

Sesotho
Dumela. Ke a o amohela ho Wikipedia. I'm sure you can imagine my surprise and distress when I saw a new user pop out of nowhere and make changes to the article after the debacle a few days ago but I was relieved when I eventually saw them and I think they're great.

1 (or should that be one?) question though: why did you imply that the difference between adjectives and enumeratives was morphological? I believe it's purely a case of using different concords. Sesotho has a handful of enumeratives (Doke and Mofokeng gives 5, while Mabille and Dieterlen give an extra 1 I've honestly never heard before). As a demonstration of the differences between enumeratives, adjectives, and relatives:
 * 1) Enumerative: Difate dife?
 * 2) Relative: Difate tse boima.
 * 3) Adjective: Difate tse ntle.

Or am I missing something?

Also, you should probably consider linking to Sotho languages instead of Sotho-Tswana.

Wikipedia desperately needs more people like yourself -- again welcome.

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Great edits indeed to Northern Sotho language and Sotho language. Welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few good links for newcomers: Also, judging from your contributions, I thought you might be interested in the Africa-related regional notice board ; and probably in WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, too. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;); it produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. &mdash; mark &#9998;
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Thanks! & language information appeal
Thanks to both ZyXoas and Mark for your warm welcome. ZyXoas, I don't have my Sotho reference tools in front of me, so I can't do justice to your questions. I'll think about enumeratives and adjectives more. The problem is that these are often properly distinguished only tonally, and so far the Wiki articles on SA have no tonal info (the Sotho article being an exception, but even here it's categorial tonal oppositions, not tone from paradigms; but maybe that's being a bit too ambitious for now!). Obviously, one can only do so much. Hmmmm. I'll think about this a bit.

I've followed some of the links; thanks. Mark: I followed the Systemic Bias link, to a list of South Africa stubs to be worked on, and added a paragraph on language. I hope this doesn't violate Wiki policy, but I think that Wiki is one of the VERY few places one can ask people (native speakers of any of the 11 official lgs in SA, and all the others) to contribute meaningfully, even with firsthand data that isn't secondary, and possibly isn't verifiable initially. Example: where do Sotho-speaking communities in SA live? It's not always clear. The ones clustered around giant townships in the north, as well as villages scattered all over the Free State, but especially the lesser known places in the northern Transkei, are un-catalogue-able from the SA census. Is it fair to appeal for data to be added in this forum? I think so. I'll see what you others think. &mdash; Sotho of the South 14:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, that is one of the most thorny issues in this corner of Wikipedia. The main problem, as you rightly point out, is verifiability. Phrased cynically: how are we going to know that the data has been added by someone who has direct experience with the language, and not by a crank? And on Wikipedia, there is a big problem with verifying later: information from Wikipedia travels fast; it is re-used by dozens of bonafide sites and outrightly copied by hundreds of 'scrapers', websites who use the content only to pollute search engine results. We really cannot afford to spread unverified information.
 * This is why the verifiability and cite sources policies are considered of foremost importance to Wikipedia; and hence, why your proposal is going to be problematic if it concerns informant that cannot be verified on the basis of a reliable source... &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Ok, I hear you. Pity, eh? One of the main problems is where to put info as it comes in. So much of lies on fieldworkers' shelves, and in prefaces to dusty doctorates. I found my own speech communities by reading the preface of someone else's dissertation. His material turned out to be rather wobbly, but the stuff about where to find the communities was very reliable. Polluters indeed; what a weird world the net is. Well, would it be wiser to take down that paragraph I added? Perhaps so. &mdash; Sotho of the South 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Case in point: what would you do with this edit? (This one was just brought to my attention by Ling.Nut; I have reported on my own attempts at my talk page.) &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"often properly distinguished only tonally"? :-/ Okay, here's a better example which clearly shows (or should that be "shews"?) the difference in the concords:
 * 1) Enumerative: Monna osele (as in look).
 * 2) Adjective: Monna e mobe (vulgar monna a mobe).
 * 3) Relative: Monna ya bohale (vulgar monna a bohale).

In particular, (actually class 1 is an exception, but the difference in its concords is most obvious):
 * The relative concord is created by weakening the class prefix (removing the initial nasal) and then adding the lowered vowel (thus di becomes di + e = tse).
 * Adjective concords are formed by following the relative with the class prefix (Sesotho di is an exception, but notice Setswana).
 * Enumerative concords are simply the class prefix (for the strong enumeratives -ng? and -ng) or the prefix weakened (for -fe? -feng? -sele and the suspect -pe).

The weird thing about class 1 is that it sometimes weakens to e instead of o.

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice egs of enumeratives, ZyXoas. You're refreshed my memory. Ja, all the weak ("nasal") classes (1,3,4,6,9,10) display nicely varied prefixes, especially Class 1 as the egs you gave here; also the Class 10 ones you gave earlier. By "morphological" I meant exactly what you've just exemplified: the o-/e-mo-/ya- are "different concords", as you say, i.e. the distinctions are morphological: the morpheme shapes vary according to paradigm (but only for some classes). Maybe "morphosyntactic" would have been a better characterisation. For the non-weak classes, they are tonal, if anything (e.g. Class 7 se-/se-/se- may have tonal distinctions. I don't have access to the data right now. In Phuthi, the concord distinctions are often tonal (as well as morpho-syntactic). Anyway, we could leave tonal data till later, I guess.


 * Tell me about the "suspect -pe". I don't remember.


 * About "Sotho-Tswana", it strikes me that this is the standard label for the Zone S subset that includes Southern & Northern Sotho & Tswana. That's what Heine 1971 uses, which seems good to me. No?


 * Cheers to all, &mdash; Sotho of the South 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the class 7 concords are: Where "e" is the vowel in "let", "E" is the vowel in "lit" and the square brackets indicate tone patterns. These concords match the formula I gave perfectly.
 * 1) Enumerative: sE [_]
 * 2) Adjective: se sE [-_]
 * 3) Relative: se [-]

Actually, I believe the only reason why we can distinguish between classes 1 and 3 is because of the irregular behaviour of class 1's concords.

"-pe" is given as an enumerative in Mabille and Dieterlen (the last time I checked). It says it means something like "oh what X you have" and the example provided is "Dikhomu dipe tsa hao!" "Oh what great cows you have!" -- I don't believe a word. I've never heard of this anywhere else and I wonder where it gets the word from...

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW for Phuthi, you should meet SimonDonnelly who has brought our article on Phuthi from here to here over the last few months (diff). It seems we have a sudden influx of South African language specialists, great! &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sotho-Tswana
I'm not sure that the merger would be such a fantastic idea. I'm of the (perhaps mistaken) opinion that keeping related topics separate actually helps then grow better. My view is that merging the articles would dilute them and since these are African subjects there's little chance that people will come along and significantly improve the merged article while keeping the two related topics essentially separate (cf the fact that Sotho-Tswana mentions the languages).

I realise that my point is not clear, but let me suggest an alternative solution. Rather than merging the articles, remove the linguistic info from Sotho-Tswana and link to Sotho languages, try your very best to improve Sotho languages and make it more relevant and contemporary (always a major problem with African topics).

I believe that Sotho languages is a valid term. The apparent absence of Setswana is not an issue.

Are you suggesting that Silozi is NOT a Sesotho language?

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello SotS. I agree with Zyxoas on the Sotho-Tswana issue. Both Sotho languages and Sotho-Tswana are entirely valid encyclopedic topics, and in an ideal encyclopedia they should both be covered in extenso. It is my experience that merging ethnographic articles with their linguistic counterparts often leads to confused and messy articles. There are exceptions; I even have created a few 'hybrid' articles myself (e.g. Defaka, Terik, Yaaku) but that has mainly to do with a scarcity of sources which seems not to be an issue in this area. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, guys. In brief, ok, keep the articles separate (I see the reasoning, and it makes sense at the level of increased epistemological "granularity", with concomitantly detailed articles).

But the Sotho languages entry really should be called "Sotho-Tswana languages" (we'd need an explanatory note if it's not), because that is the standard name in my experience. Certainly, there is nothing per se wrong with "Sotho languages", except that in the field of Bantu linguistics it is a slightly less inclusive term than Sotho-Tswana, and doesn't ring quite the same taxonomic bells as the cover term. In short, it isn't the general taxonomic label for that level of genetic organisation within Southern Bantu. If Wikipedia is intending to be encyclopaedic, using standard operative "circuits" of knowledge, we may as well use what exists currently as a standard. We can't simply dismiss things because they are flatly claimed to be "not an issue". Well, an issue for who? This is not a personal preference I'm proposing to you, but a research field standard. Certainly the claim that "The apparent absence of Setswana is not an issue."--to quote from the comment above--is not the sympathetic position of a member of the northernmost and westernmost branch of the subgroup. The Tswanas might see things differently...

My basic point: go with standards; don't create new ones, unless existing ones are demonstrably inadequate.

No, no, I'm certainly not suggesting that Lozi is not a Sotho language. That part is quite indisputable. I offered my comments on Talk:Sotho_languages in response to the questions raised about the allophonic/phonemic closeness of Lozi to Sotho. Yes, the closest recent ancestor to Lozi is Southern Sotho, without any linguistic or historical doubt. The question simply remains: what is the nature of the genetic evolution between some form of 19th century Sotho and Lozi?

(Last marginal thing: the risk of the pro-prefix approach that ZyXoas prefers is manifest in his/her question above: "Are you suggesting that Silozi is NOT a Sesotho language?". This is not completely coherent as a question, given that Lozi (Silozi) is in this case most definitely not a *Sesotho language, but it is a Sotho language. "Sesotho" is only the local name for the language itself, not the classificatory label of the higher branch (thus: they are Nguni languages, not *Isinguni languages; this is not a huge point, but one sees the cladistic nomenclature trap).

Cheers, &mdash; Sotho of the South 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood you then; as my reply indicates, I thought you were proposing to merge an ethnographic article with a linguistic one. So what you really want is to move Sotho languages to Sotho-Tswana languages? Perhaps you can clarify. I agree that Sotho-Tswana is commonly used to denote a grouping of Bantu languages, but isn't Sotho-Tswana more inclusive than Sotho languages? Isn't the latter used for Northern and Southern Sotho, with Sotho-Tswana denoting Northern Sotho + Southern Sotho + Tswana? This is how Nurse & Philippson (2003) do it, for example, and also the Ethnologue.
 * I agree by the way that Sotho languages doesn't seem to be the most common term for Northern S. + Southern S. + Tswana (i.e. Guthrie's S.30 group) if that's your point. I also agree with your points about to prefix or not to prefix. Basically, my approach has always been to use the most common term. &mdash; mark &#9998; 11:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah... The name "Sotho languages" does not exclude Setswana and Silozi. As I mentioned briefly on Template talk:Languages of South Africa, it's simply an unfortunate historical fact that Moshoeshoe and his followers decided to use the ancient name "Basotho" for their new nation instead of "Bamokotedi". This tends to confuse most people (including you, seemingly) since they incorrectly believe that the name is exclusionary. Batswana, Barotse, Balobedu, Bapedi, Bat(l)okwa, etc are all Basotho but they're not part of the Basotho nation formed by Moshoeshoe I from disparate Basotho (Sesotho languages speaking) clans. Okay? If "Sotho-Tswana languages" truly IS more common then I'm down with that, but the apparent lack of "Tswana" is not an issue -- it's just a bit confusing. I'm male; "I'M NOT A BOY! I'M A MAN!!" like Malcolm X's father says before being run over by the train in the Spike Lee movie... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, dear correspondents. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, as always. Mark, I wasn't very clear, but I was proposing two things: (a) to merge the ethnographic Sotho-Tswana and linguistic Sotho languages; and (b) changing the Sotho languages name to "Sotho-Tswana languages" within the merged page.


 * I can see now that my idea wasn't a good one, because of course there is plenty to say about the Sotho-Tswana (or just "Sotho") languages, as there is about the Nguni languages. There are shared areal features to be discussed (apomorphies and other yummy things). So, based on your and ZyXoas's feedback, the (a) part was a bad one. I withdrawn my suggestion.


 * As for the (b) part, again, it's not an issue worth squabbling too much over. It just seemed to me that "Sotho-Tswana" was the more standard term. Thanks, ZyXoas, for the input on Sotho-subvarieties (or at least clan names). I didn't know this about the history of the people and the language name choice.


 * But ZyXoas' argument is an ethno-historical one, that I don't think affects in any way the observation that Sotho-Tswana is a standard term (granted, it's a pretty small group of people in the world who actually know and use these terms!). Sure, "Sotho" is an artificial historical choice (most language names are), but it's there now, and the other members of the group, for better or worse, are all varieties of some sort of the Sotho-Lozi-Tswana language cluster.


 * I didn't know that Nurse & Philippson (2003) used the labels in the same way I'm suggesting things be cleared up, but that makes sense. (Thanks, Mark, I hadn't seen the work yet, being stuck out here in the diaspora boonies/bundu away from access to a good Africanist library.) I leave it to those who've seen this latest compendium on Bantu to clean up / standardise appropriately.


 * It's a small thing, but it's worth sorting out the contemporary from the historical arguments. The latter just clutter the naming landscape without adding anything viably different, I think.


 * Anyway, I leave things as they are. I wish you both a happy and holy Christmas and selemo se se tjha se se monate haholo!

Sotho of the South 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll do the move.

Btw, "monate" is a relative. If it's a descriptive word and it looks like a noun then it's a relative, not an adjective. ;) Same to you. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I took out the second se... Durn. Yep, I knew it was a relative. But thanks... ;-)

&mdash; Sotho of the South 22:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! >> Sotho vowel height
Wait a second!! What's that you said on Talk:Sotho languages about "the raised high allophones /i u/"!? I've been looking for information and references on this for ages! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, it was given a long time ago descriptively in unpublished work by Derek Gowlett at the University of the Witwatersrand and then the University of Cape Town in the 1980s. Then, this was confirmed instrumentally in:


 * Khabanyane, Khatatso E. (1991). The five phonemic vowel heights of Southern Sotho: an acoustic and phonological analysis. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, Vol. 5. 1-36.


 * Cool, eh? Sotho has taken the vowel height parameter and gone wild! Clements referred to the Sotho system both in the draft version of his theoretical paper on consonant and vowel features:


 * Clements, George N. (1989). 'A unified set of features for consonants and vowels'. ms, Cornell University.


 * and (differently, ultimately) in the published version that deals explicitly with vowel height:


 * Clements, George N. (1991). Vowel height assimilation in Bantu languages. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5: 37-76.

Bye! &mdash; Sotho of the South 22:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Other" S 30 languages?
Hi there,

Ethnologue has the following listed as S-T langauges: Kgalagadi, Birwa, Tswapong, and Ndebele (?!). Care to add your comments at Talk:Sotho-Tswana_languages -Batamtig 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

South African films
Hi!! Please can you help fill in the List of South African films I am afraid it will be up for afd. I and a few other users are trying to fill the lists by country in. If you can add the details on the films already on wikipedia in year order from Category:SOuth African films and any others you know of from notable directors etc that would be a great help for WP Film sand South Africa!. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sesotho wiktionary
Hi,

I'm trying to get some support to get the Sesotho Wiktionary going - I've added a lot of terms myself already.

See my application for adminship: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#st.wikitionary.org_Sesotho_Wiktionary_Administrator_Request

We need to vote on this matter on the Sesotho Wiktionary: http://st.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikitionary:Administrators

Kind regards Jakoli4 11:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC) http://www.sesotho.web.za/

WikiProject South Africa
I have recently overhauled WikiProject South Africa with the following:
 * Improving collaboration of participants by adding an Open tasks section with specific as well as common tasks
 * Added link to the CatScan tool to find articles needing cleanup, referencing and expanding
 * Added common tasks that should be performed on Portal:South Africa
 * Added information on how to add Geographical coordinates
 * Added articles missing Images
 * Added assessment information
 * Improving the layout to make access to information easier
 * Added simple "How can I help?" instructions for new project members
 * Extended the Resources section to assist participants in finding South Africa related information
 * Added bot generated Article alerts
 * Added a bot generated Cleanup listing
 * Added more information on template usage
 * Added a section on language usage
 * Improved the categories section with trees for category:South Africa Wikipedia administration and category:South Africa
 * Added link to Wikipedia Books
 * Marked inactive sections of the project as inactive

Comments, constructive criticism and suggestions for improving it further are welcome --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellenbosch to bid for Wikimania 2012!
Hi Sotho of the South!

The nascent South African Wikimedia chapter has decided to bid to host Wikimania in Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2012. This would be the first Wikimania in South Africa, and would be a great advertisement for our country. Please take a look at meta:Wikimania_2012/Bids/Stellenbosch. If you can add to the discussion, please do. If you feel that you are able to do anything to help, please join the Wikimedia South Africa mailing list and let us know. Even simple messages of support are valued!

Best regards,

David Richfield

Wiki Loves Monuments in South Africa
Dear WikiProject South Africa Wikipedians

This is an urgent call from Wikimedia South Africa. We are currently working hard on the South African side of the exciting international photographic competition, Wiki Loves Monuments. We have been planning to make this national competition really take off, but to do so, we need your help! The competition starts on the 1st September, and we need your help now! If you are interested in being part of or can help the Wiki Loves Monuments national organising team, then please join here [ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012_in_South_Africa]. If you have limited time, but want to help out at an upload marathon at a heritage site near you, please then contact either Lourie [louriepieterse@yahoo.com] or Isla [islahf@africacentre.net]. We look forward to hearing from you!"

Kind regards, Lourie

Sent by Lucia Bot in 14:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)