Talk:Eskimo–Aleut languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citations[edit]

Can anyone provide the full citation for Fleming 1987? —Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation for this? I'm having a hard time finding sources that say verbal agreement is obligatory in Inuktitut. "All Eskimo–Aleut languages have obligatory verbal agreement with agent and patient in transitive clauses, and there are special suffixes used for this purpose in subordinate clauses, which makes these languages, like most in the North Pacific, highly complement deranking."

Yupik[edit]

The article states that "However, recent research suggests that Yup'ik by itself is not a valid node". Can anyone provide a citation for this assertion? —Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Inuit[edit]

Inuit is *not* an acceptable term for all Eskimo peoples. It is only acceptable for Eskimos of the Eastern Canadian Arctic. I have talked to non-Inuit Eskimos who are constantly irritated that people try to be politically correct and call them "Inuit" when the "Inuit" are a different people than they are.

"Eskimo" is still used by scientists and linguists and anthropologists to refer to all Eskimo groups, while the use of "Inuit" is limited to refering to Eskimos of the Eastern Canadian Arctic. Node ue 01:42, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


Is there anything these people wish to be called other than Eskimo? --Saforrest 22:24, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Collectively, no. Many Eastern Canadian Eskimos prefer the term Inuit, and many Alaskan Eskimos prefer the term Yup'ik. --Node 08:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be more accurate, both Eastern and Western Canadian Eskimos are quite happy with the term Inuit, as are, I believe, some of the western Alaskan Eskimos. I think it depends mostly on language. Those who speak Inuktitut-In~upiaq are Inuit, those that speak Yup'ik are Yup'ik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.128.4 (talkcontribs)

62.254.128.4's quite right. I'd go a step further, and say that among English-speaking Canadians today, 'Eskimo' is nearly as unacceptable as 'nigger'. Western Inuit often prefer to be called Inuvialuit, but as far as I know there's no mood in Canada for reverting to the name 'Eskimo'. I can't imagine any of my friends in Canada saying that other than as an insult. (The French equivalent esquimaux isn't quite as unacceptable, but it's moving that way...) QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree to some extent with the classification of "Eskimo" as an exonym, at least in Alaska. Having lived in Alaska, the term is definitely used quite widely, both by white and indigenous Alaskans. The terms "Yupik", "Yup'ik", and "Inupiaq" are certainly used as well by the respective groups. The term "native" is also used quite widely to refer to all indigenous groups in Alaska. The term "Eskimo" is not considered derogatory in Alaska. —Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What's this absurd fuss about? "Eskimo" is nothing more than a Cree word eskwimwew "eaters of raw meat". What did Inuit eat all these thousands of years if it was not raw meat?? Is it racist simply because the Inuit didn't get along with the Cree and therefore don't like Cree names for things? Can anyone respond to this site talking about the origins of the word[1]?

Goddard writes: "In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media, largely in response to demands from Eskimo political associations. The erroneous belief that Eskimo was a pejorative term meaning 'eater of raw flesh' had a major influence on this shift. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."

--Glengordon01 07:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


It's true: from a certain point of view it's absurd. But word origin is rarely a indication of pejorative sense. A term is pejorative so long as people feel that it is. So it is that Eskimo is adopted by many if not most in Alaska, while it is considered pejorative in Canada. But note that this may be changing, as more and more Alaskans are using indigenous terms -- even going so far as to differentiate Cupik vs. Yupik (based on a dialect division). The difficulty in Alaska is the lack of a convenient overarching term to include both Yupik and Inupiat (and now Cupik, Sugpiaq, etc. -- these all being terms for 'real person(s)' in various languages). Note that today, some 30 years after the Barrow meeting, the ICC continues to fudge the issue by including all Eskimo languages but tacitlty avoiding reference to any cover term. ICC Alaska --Gholton (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)



Recent classifications have placed Inuit as a fifth (?) branch of Yuppik. I think that's well supported, but don't have the info on hand. kwami 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the issue is the breadth of the Yupik subgroup. This most certainly includes Central Yupik, Siberian Yupik, and Sugpiaq (Pacific Coast); but some other languages now classed under Yupik may belong coordinate with Inupiaq in a Yupik-Inuit tree. --Gholton (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Asian emigration of Eskimo-Aleut peoples[edit]

An edit was made recently on the article that suggested that Eskimo-Aleut (EA) could have come over as early as 15,000 years ago. Yet this is too extreme to be believed and contradicts the current linguistic evidence now. Joseph Greenberg's work can say nothing on the matter because mass comparison is simply not considered secure evidence by linguists, however the data collected in recent books like that of Michael Fortescue (Language Relations across Bering Strait, 1998) seem to suggest that EA came over recently, even as late as 4000 years ago (see Uralo-Siberian languages). Greenberg has to be forgotten now. We live in the 21st century, not 1950, people! /:P --Glengordon01 09:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only covers the basic information on the topic, and as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aleutian islands missing from the map[edit]

Obviously it would be difficult to squeeze the Aleutian islands into the existing map, because it would require zooming out so much that the map would become too difficult to read. But on an article about the "Eskimo-Aleut languages," we certainly need to include the Aleutian islands in the only map on the page! A couple possibilities: 1) include a small box in the existing map with a dislocated view of the Aleutians 2) add another, separate map of the Aleutians. babbage (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Taa?[edit]

I downloaded a Greenlandic-English dictionary from this website, which says that taa (as well as ta) means "listen I tut! What can that be?", but this article says it means "human being". So it can't be right. But I can't change that, because I don't know what it translates to in the other Eskimo-Aleut languages. Whoever made that table seems to be an expert, however, so maybe they could. 80.42.102.93 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge the taa that means "listen" is a short form of a verb (either qakkuakkuutaa or tusarpaa) that just happens to look identical to the old root for human being that is no longer used in west Greenlandic.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Northern Asia[edit]

This article seems to be marrred by geopolitcs. Surely there is a continuum of languages between Western Alaska and Eastern Siberia. But the map only show the New World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.219.11 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification[edit]

Qawiaraq language[edit]

Is Qawiaraq language a Central Siberian Yupik language as said here or a Seward Peninsula Inupiaq language as said there ?

Uummarmiutun dialect[edit]

Does Uummarmiutun dialect belong to Inuvialuktun as said here and there or to Inupiaq language as said there ?

Arno Lagrange  06:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Uummarmiutun. Both Inupiaq language and Uummarmiutun say that the dialect is spoken only in Aklavik and Inuvik in the NWT. The Uummarmiut themselves are Inupiat (originally Nunatamiut) from Alaska who moved to Canada in 1910. So yes Uummarmiutun would be a dialect of the Inupiaq language. However, if you look at the Inuvialuit Regional Corp.'s page on languages it's also listed there. Then at the Language Geek page it also says that Uummarmiutun is included with Inuvialuktun but is considered part of the Inupiaq dialect. So I think that it needs to be included with both groups. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

pulaatxix̂[edit]

The cognate chart says that the Aleut word for "tent" is pulaatxix̂, but the Aleut article says Aleut doesn't have /p/. And the only Google hits for pulaatxix̂ that I can find are on sites that mirror the Wikipedia article. What's going on there? --Nortaneous (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Aleut Lexicon : pulaatxi{ tent (Note: The not-funt letter { is x̂) --Kmoksy (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


interesting...who in kalmyk(mongolic) is KEN, in tatar(turkic) KIM...then many turkic languages for DOG are KOEPEK,QOEPEK etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.184.253 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Range map[edit]

The range map used here is incomplete in three regards:
1/ The Russian areas are omitted
2/ Part of Greenland is omitted
3/ The map indicates that the E-A speaking range does not include Ellesmere Island, Cornwallis Island, Banks Island and certain other inhabited islands of Canadian Arctic Archipelago. This is not correct.

The map is someone else's work so I don't necessarily want to edit it, but perhaps we can come up with a better map.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Siberia[edit]

Siberia is elsewhere in Russia (central north asia). Where these languages are spoken is actually the Russian Far East. Just to make that clear... 99.236.215.170 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Siberia is all of Russian Asia. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia (Even in the article for Siberia itself, the area in question is only incorrectly associated with Siberia).99.236.215.170 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
And just because you say normal English usage is "incorrect" doesn't make it so. We don't say Siberia District, we say Siberia. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
So does this mean if, in the German language, they decide to refer to all of Great Britain as England, that they should then conflate the terms on a page for England? Should they write an article on England and include Glasgow, or should they base the article on how the country is divided within its own political boundaries? 99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I forgot to add: In Russia, Siberia is a specifically defined Geographical area even outside of the federal district of Siberia which does not include the areas mentioned. IF you want, I can write an article on New York, British North America, but unfortunately, this is not a verifiable fact.99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Siberia. You might want to read articles before you refer other people to them. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
From the article on Siberia: 'Soviet-era sources (Great Soviet Encyclopedia and others)[34] and modern Russian ones[35] usually define Siberia as a region extending eastward from the Ural Mountains to the watershed between Pacific and Arctic drainage basins, and southward from the Arctic Ocean to the hills of north-central Kazakhstan and the national borders of both Mongolia and China. By this definition, Siberia includes the federal subjects of the Siberian Federal District, and some of the Urals Federal District, as well as Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, which is a part of the Far Eastern Federal District. Geographically, this definition includes subdivisions of several other subjects of Urals and Far Eastern federal districts, but they are not included administratively. This definition excludes Sverdlovsk Oblast and Chelyabinsk Oblast, both of which are included in some wider definitions of Siberia.' So not only is it by definition not a part of Geographical Siberia, it's also not a part of the political region. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We're not a Soviet-era source. Nor are we a modern Russian one. We're an English-language source, and the rest of the article supports "Siberia" for this article. It's hard to believe you could extract that excerpt without reading the rest of the article, which means it's hard to believe that you're operating in good faith. Rather, you appear to be cherry-picking the tidbit that agrees with you and sweeping the rest under the carpet. There's a word for that. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am agreeing with the general view within Russia, as the area is found within Russia. To refer to the area as Siberia is something done outside of Russia with naivete. Most people are not very well acquainted with the modern day situation and geography within the country, but it doesn't mean that this should take precedence. You are more familiar with antiquated terminology, fine, but why not use a more precise definition. Even IF the area were "siberian", Russian Far East is more accurate as it's a smaller area. Saying eastern Siberia and associating it with the wider area could lead one to believe it's spoken as far west as Kazakhstan or Mongolia. I just don't see why you would wish to stick with a more imprecise term. By the way: Don't forget, Wikipedia is not a source, it's built on real primary sources. When you say 'we're an english speaking source' first of all that's wrong, secondly whether an source is in English or not has no bearing on whether it can be used as a primary source: that's ethnocentrism. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to add, the name which I believe would be more accurate is the name of this region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eastern_Federal_District. Conversely, Chukotka would be another solution. But referring to it as Siberia seems to me about as accurate as talking about "the middle east" and including both Western Saharah and Pakistan. They are both included in the very widest definition of Middle East, but it is not necessarily the best way to talk about the countries. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the Siberia article which you referred me to to back up your POV, Chukotka is in Siberia. Everyone knows where Siberia is; relatively few have heard of the various Russian district names. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The article I referred you to includes the area in question only as the broadest possible definition, and which is not universally accepted by everyone (obviously, or else there would be no need for the various definitions). Using a more specific definition, and one which isn't contentious, and one which would not need to be explained (the Russian Far East, who would possibly misconstrue this??) is better considering the relatively small area in which the languages are actually present. We are using the broadest definition of an area so vast if it were on its own it would be the largest country in the world in order to describe a very small area (where these languages are spoken). It's like saying French is the main language spoken in the western part of America... (referring to Québec)
Also, the Russian Far East is not only a federal district, though is shares the same name, it's also a geographical definition. Furthermore, the article about the Chutkotka Autonomous Oblast states that the oblast is in the Russian Far East: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukotka_Autonomous_Okrug so I don't know where you are getting your claim. The article on the peninsula itself also states nowhere in the article that it's in Siberia, I just don't understand what you are not seeing here... 99.236.215.170 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll gather several sources which refer to the geographical location of the Chukchi Peninsula as well as more specific information about the Russian Far East, which can serve as citations I guess if people are unfamiliar with the term:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Far_East
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukotka_Autonomous_Okrug
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukchi_Peninsula
  4. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/chukchi-peninsula.html
  5. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/russia/russian-far-east
  6. http://www.rusemb.org.uk/russiageography/ (Note References to Siberia and the Russian Far East)
  7. http://forest.mtu.edu/pcforestry/resources/studentprojects/siberia.html

I just don't understand the apparent shock the other fellow feels about referring to the region as the Russian Far East, it's more specific. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion: I've read through the detailed discussion above and briefly looked through this and the related articles. I would say that even though referring to it as "Russian Far East" is more precise than using "East Siberia" (in terms of actual political division)...I would tend to favour the latter. From WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." and finally it also cautions us against using ambiguous and inaccurate names—I don't think that "Siberia" falls that badly into any of those categories. The article Chukchi Peninsula mentions exactly where it lies, no one disputes this fact. It's just better to refer to it here in this way, for the better understanding of our readers. No doubt those curious about this can see the actual political divisions in the main Siberia page. Hope this helps, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

The lead states, "The Eskimo–Aleut languages are among the native languages of the Americas. This is a geographical category, not a linguistic one." I assume that "not genealogical" or "not genetic" is what is actually meant by "not linguistic". If so, the lead should be clarified accordingly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Eskimo-Aleut cognate table[edit]

For the table, I plan on separating each section into groups. I will later explain what is happening in the cognate sets, so the table will be more comprehensible. I also have a valid source that I can add to the table because i see that there isn't one available now. I will also alphabetize the lists and separate the pronouns into separate tables (independent pronouns and pronominal suffixes)

Position among the languages of the world[edit]

I'm going to add a little bit more background context on this section because it seems too brief

Notable features[edit]

Under the subsection notable features, I will further contribute to some examples, as well as enhance the facts to make the information more rich .

Phonology & Grammar[edit]

I think there should be a section or sections on phonology and grammar, so I will add one. It will make the table easier to read and follow along to. There are some phoneme charts on other Wikipedia pages, but there are no links on this page that directs the readers to them. I will also add in the introduction at the top of the page a phonological pronunciation of "Eskimo-Aleut"