Appendix talk:Algonquian and Iroquoian Swadesh lists

Cherokee and Mohawk
What are Cherokee and Mohawk doing here? 71.66.97.228 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nottoway, too. All three are Iroquian, not Algonquian. And, what about Cree, Shawnee and Abnaki? Why aren't they on the comparative chart? CJLippert 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's something called the Algonquian-Iroquian hypothesis. The reason they're included is to test this hypothesis. I am absolutely unsure as to whether this hypothesis is valid or not. The purpose of this Swadesh list is to test this out. And if you want Cree and others to be on here, then please feel free to add them yourselves. — Stevey7788 05:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Iroquian is usually grouped with Siouian some other families, it has nothing other than geographical proximity in common with Algic afaik.


 * What exactly is the Algonquian-Iroquoian hypothesis? When the Algic-Iroquoian relationship is mentioned, I think of the lumper Joseph Greenberg, producing the biggest lump of all time, Amerind, assembled it from already classified macrofamilies, themselves assembled from already classified families, and so on.


 * Among these the first is Almosan-Keresiouan. Which not only includes Algic, Mosan, Keres, and Siouan, it includes Iroquois. According to Greenberg and his acolyte Merritt Ruhlen in A Guide to the World's Languages, Iroquoian is classified under the subfamily "Keresiouan," which breaks down into: a. Keresan, b. Siouan-Yuchi, c. Caddoan, d. Iroquoian.


 * This makes the hypothesized Algonquian relationship to Iroquoian rather more distant. If Iroquoian were homeless and needed to crash on the floor of another family's Swadesh list, closer relatives would have been Pawnee (Caddoan) or Mandan, Dakota, Osage (Siouan). Why don't we build Iroquoian its own home so it doesn't have to crash on distant relatives' floors?


 * Stevey, has your comparison of Algonquian and Iroquoian turned up anything of interest yet? I would rather compare Osage oranges with Osage oranges, so to speak. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This list is not the official home of Iroquoian languages. Iroquoian can have its own Swadesh list, and it can also appear along with Pawnee (Caddoan) or Mandan, Dakota, Osage (Siouan). That Iroquoian appears on an Algonquian list is not evidence that it is related ... it can just as well be evidence that it is NOT related. People who think there might be a discernible connection between the two families can look here and decide for themselves whether there is anything to the theory.
 * In fact, it is questionable whether a Swadesh list offers anything of value in determining whether relationships exist and to what degree. The Swadesh list is not the unbiased universal tool it was intended to be. The list of words is Indo-European-centric, and does not work well for many languages more distant from the Indo-European ones. In any case, such a small list is much too simplistic. It turns out to be little more than an interesting list of words. —Stephen (Talk) 00:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Narragansett/Wampanoag (the language documented by early Puritan settlers) should probably be added. The closely related Nipmuc was used in the recent Chris Eyre documentary that aired on PBS. 71.66.97.228 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are some basic linguistic problems underlying this whole enterprise for Algonquian languages. The verbs, at least, are highly inflected, and many are semantically quite specialized. As a result, some of the forms listed aren't actual words, e.g. Ojibwe -gaabawi- which is the form for 'stand' when it's in a compound. It has to have another part in fromt to make it pronounceable as a word. Similarly, 'see' waabi is only the intransitive. The transitive forms (in Nichols citation form) are waabandan 'see it' and waabam 'see him', both of which are semantically a little odd.

We should figure out how to apply Swadesh to Algonquian in the first place and then worry about how which languages to include.

(More on that later.) Miiknaans (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It’s much the same problem with all polysynthetic languages. I suggest listing a full verb with the significant root in parentheses, like this: (-gaabawi-). —Stephen (Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just now I created an entry for Unami wil 'head'; its etymology at LTD says:

Note: if the meaning "his head" is intended, a prefixed /w-/ can be assumed. However, /ww/ coalesces to a single occurrence /w/, leaving the possessed form identical with the unpossessed form.
 * So that I was able to contribute this word with a clean conscience vis-à-vis the inseparable possessive prefixes of Algonquian. This time I just got lucky, because Unami language loves to elide and assimilate sounds. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)