Talk:Hopi language

Untitled

The link to the Hopi Literacy Project seems dead, should it be removed?

--babbage 00:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

phonology questions: dialect issues?

Hi. This description here of the sound system is a little different from Whorf's description. For example, the back velars are not uvular: they are velar. (Also, uvular sounds are not reconstructed for Proto-Uto-Aztecan, which doesnt necessarily mean anything, but I then wonder where the uvulars come from.) So, I wonder if this is a misreading of Whorf (since Whorf is cited in the biblio). But, maybe it's dialectal variation. Also what of the preaspirated consonants, voiceless sonorants, etc.? – ishwar  (speak) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Whorf writes but Hopi has Uvular stops. Uvular stops are a reflex of pua *k before *o and *a. Pua *k is reflected as k before i ɨ and u.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes Whorf did reconstruct two velar stops for PUA a fronted k and a normal one and he posited the fronted k as a reflex of fronted k and q as a reflex of normal k. However this contrast is not attested in any other UA language.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Whorf's description of q is "velar" (as well as aspirated q, ŋ, and Ŋ) and k is in a column labeled "pre-palatal and palatal" along with preaspirated k, ɲ, y, and Y (voiceless y). In a third column, he lists kʷ, aspirated kʷ, ŋʷ as "labialized palatal".

C. F. Voegelin describes k as "front" and q as "back" and in a partly complementary distribution. He says the contrast between ka and qa is due more to the presence of a palatalized k, which he describes as a prevocalic y-glide and symbolizes as [kʸa], than a difference in backness. A sentence later he characterized q as "the not-so-far-back /q/".

Finally, there is third k sound in some dialects that occurs in some Spanish loanwords where the (front) k is not followed by the y glide in a ka sequence. That is, a contrast between borrowed [ka] and native [kʸa]. Whorf writes this borrowed k as ḳ as calls it "ordinary k" and places it in parentheses inside the "pre-palatal and palatal" column.

These two sources seems to indicate a palatal vs. velar contrast.

Finally, I found a published letter of Whorf's where he says that Second Mesa k is not like English k but sounds like ky. However, in this letter he uses the term "velar" to describe Hopi q and compares it to Arabic and Nootka q (which are both uvulars). He also says that Hopi ŋ is like English ŋ in hang "but more velar".

This seems to suggest a palatal (or pre-velar) vs. uvular contrast. And also that the term "velar" in the other Whorf source be interpreted as = uvular. (And other contemporary linguists, e.g. Harry Hoijer's description of Navajo, use the term "front palatal" = palatal, "back palatal" = velar.)

So, what do other sources say? And what are those sources? – ishwar  (speak) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Laverne Jeanne's dissertation (MIT 1978) says that /q/ and /qʷ/ are dorso-velar and backed and opposed to k which is dorso-velar and "neutral" and /kʲ/ which is apico velar and fronted.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt think to look that up. Well, it's still not so clear that q has a dorsum-uvula contact. It may or may not. It's kinda interesting that there are three different places that are so close together but still contrastive (although the glide after fronted k helps). – ishwar  (speak) 16:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No it is a little unclear so I changed the text to dorso-velar instead of uvular.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the orthography in the chart? It is only for 3rd Mesa. 2nd Mesa has more consonants (the geminates in other UtoAztecan are realized as preaspirated stops or voiceless sonorants). Since the dictionaries of Hopi are only of 3rd Mesa, there doesnt seem to be orthographic conventions for 2nd Mesa consonants.

I was thinking of presenting two charts for each inventory or taking out orthography all together or just not having corresponding orthography symbols for the 2nd Mesa consonants. – ishwar  (speak) 04:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Metalinguistics Section

The section on metalinguistics seems to me to be a biased defense of Whorfian principles rather than a neutral description of his work on the Hopi language, and I feel that it should be edited or removed. Jana Masala (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "Whorf's statement has been misunderstood" seems to be a general sweeping statement. A better way to phrase might be that the idea that "The Hopi have no concept of time" is an urban myth that originated from Whorf's hypothesis, as the Hopi time controversy article does.

Another problematic sentence is "the Hopi have no conception of time as an object or substance that may be divided and subdivided". The Benjamin Whorf page explains this better, stating that the "fundamental difference in the understanding of time as a conceptual category among the Hopi" as they lacks nouns that refer to units of time. It explains that Hopi has a system that utilises future and non-future tenses, as opposed to the English distinction between past, present and future. Valeriesaw (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

unexplained diction and out of date data

The first paragraph to this page features a census that tells the number of speakers, but this number is out of date i suggest replacing it with a more recent census such as the census for 2011 which showed that there were 6,634 speakers of the Hopi language in the United States . Also, in the Phonology section, specifically in the section concerning consonants in this language, there are a lot of words that a layperson would not understand. Some of these words have it where they are linked to another wiki article and the definition is obtained that way, but some do not. I would suggest either stating the definition or linking the word to a page that explains them so that everyone is able to understand the article and learn more about the language. Warpaint13 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

References

New section on Language loss?

The introductory paragraph mentions a gradual decline in the use of Hopi, but does not elaborate on it. The trend towards English monolingualism, especially among the younger generation, has been documented by various studies. The Hopi Language Assessment Project (1997) found that English was the primary language in at least half of the 347 Hopi households surveyed, a trend influenced by the Western education system and the US government's policy of assimilation. Introducing this issue would be a good transition to the section on 'Teaching and language revitalization efforts'. - Valeriesaw (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was shocked to see little children on the res all using English while playing. Definitely worth covering. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Vowels

I've noticed the vowel chart states there is a [a] phoneme, whereas in the Writing System section I find that a is pronounced [ɔ]. That sounds like a contradiction to me. Which pronunciation is right? Also, is it [i] or is it [ɪ]?

MGorrone (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither are ref'd, so who knows. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both could be correct since phonemes do not necessarily correspond with pronunciation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Kalectaca and Langacker page 1 states that "a is pronounced much like the vowel in the english word 'pot'". It doesnt specify however if the vowel is rounded or if it is just further back than than the cardinal vowel a. Masayesva Jeanne gives the vowel phoneme as /a/ but does not specify its pronunciation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Do they necessarily even mean back? I'm going to take /a/ as the most agnostic. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hopi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195757/http://www.nhonews.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&SubSectionID=928&ArticleID=15783 to http://www.nhonews.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&SubSectionID=928&ArticleID=15783
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED226942.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)