Talk:Woiwurrung–Taungurung language

Merge proposal

Boonwurrung, Woiwurrung and Taungurung have been considered by linguists to be dialects of a single Central Victorian Language (see:[1]) and indeed, Boonwurrung shares 93% of its vocabulary with Woiwurrung (as opposed to 83% between Woiwurrung and Taungurung which are both covered in this page) (see:[2]). It therefore does not make sense that Woiwurrung and Taungurung be considered a single language under this page, but that Boonwurrung has its own page. I am therefore proposing that the Boonwurrung language page be merged into this page. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, while they are dialects, different dialects are afforded Wikipedia pages such as Berlin German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_German. By merging them together you risk making individual groups with different languages and customs into one (albeit easier to understand) homogenous mess that doesn't accurately recognise the reality.  Balaga Xx (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, it would be best to split the Woiwurrung-Taungurung language page into two separate articles for each dialect. That being said, I just don't feel there's enough content to justify three separate pages. I think it's something which could occur down the track, but as it stands it would still be best to have them all come under a single page for the overarching language with sections for each of the dialects.

I think it's also important to distinguish between a combined page for the language, as opposed to a combined language for the actual groups. I agree there would be a risk to clumping together pages for the different groups, but the dialects themselves are highly related (enough so ostensibly fall under a single language). I don't think there's a real risk that combining the language pages would conflate content relating to the individual groups into a 'homogenous mess'. Ljgua124 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Consonant table

Is it just me, or is the table totally messed up? Nonsensical column organization, interdental fricativs and whatnot... Digging from the history, I found a much more organized version & here's how I believe it should look like:

	Labial	Apical		Laminal		Dorsal
		Alveolar	Retroflex	Dental	Palatal		Velar
Stop	b/p	d/t	ɖ/ʈ (rd/rt)	d̪/t̪ (dh/th)	ɟ/c (dj/tj)		ɡ/k
Nasal	m	n	ɳ (rn)	n̪ (nh)	ɲ (ny)		ŋ (ng)
Lateral		l	ɭ (rl)
Rhotic		r (rr)	ɾ (r)
Glide					j (y)		w

--Tropylium 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Typically, Australian languages follow a convention of prefixing an "r" to make any other consonant retroflex. Consequently, they use the spelling "r" for an alveolar rhotic, and "rr" for a retroflex rhotic. So User:Tropylium's identification of the two rhotics is probably back-to-front … . yoyo (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the alveolar trill is usually rr, while the retroflex flap/approximant is r. See Transcription of Australian Aboriginal languages#Rhotics (and compare e.g. Arrernte language#Orthography, or Western Desert Language#Consonants). This is indeed kind of backwards, but it follows from the value of r as [ɻ] in Australian English. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Extinction?

The info box declares the language extinct, but the lead says "The language remains, but is not widely known or spoken …". Which is correct? yoyo (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What does extinct actually mean? It's fair to say that no-one speaks Woiwurrung as their first or only language. Boneymau (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)