This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I'm thinking of changing the page to go with the earlier 1946 analysis and footnote the 1948 analysis. It would make it easier to compare Taos with Kiowa and other Tanoan languages. Plus it makes the syllable structure a little cleaner. – ishwar(speak) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way of doing this with just one table? — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the way it is now with a table of the 1946 consonants in the footnotes. I would just switch them.
Or are you saying that you dont like having a table in the footnotes? Or that you dont like too much mentioning of different analyses? – ishwar(speak) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just thinking that if we're going to use the 1946 analysis, we don't really need another table. The differences can be summarized in one or two sentences. Something like "in Trager (1948), aspirated, ejective, and labialized consonants are analyzed as clusters with /h/, /ʔ/ and /w/ respectively rather than single phonemes." — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be done that way. – ishwar(speak) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I'm for it. 1946, full speed ahead! — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking we might want more example words. The only ones we've got are "earth" and "corn." — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In my opinion, the best grammatical descriptions are those that are richly exemplified (even better, over-exemplified). Unfortunately, that is not how Trager's grammatical description is. In his 1946 sketch, he has a list of words at the end as a sampling of the lexicon. One would have to search through his publications in order to get the examples. Harrington has more examples, but he has a different transcription system and some of his transcriptions do not seem to have a one-to-one correspondence to Trager, so they would have to be left as "is" in his notation (converting H's phonetics to T's phonemics would require interpretation, which is original research).
Anyway, I can do this after some of other stuff is completed. The tone/stress stuff is a bit annoying to read.... (it really calls out for more research.) – ishwar(speak) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to address this. – ishwar(speak) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
