Talk:Dogrib language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Genetic classification

Hi Ish, could you explain the change to the 'Genetic classification', copied from the previous verson and checked against the Ethnologue 2005 article? IceKarma 09:34, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Hi.

Sure. Ethnologue's classification is a bit controversial. So, I replaced it with something a little less provocative.

Why?

Firstly, Ethnologue is considering Haida to be a part of Na-Dene. This is generally thought to be undemonstrated and is not supported by most specialists. The fact that Ethnologue does this and also has other undemonstrated genetic groupings of N. Amer. langs, e.g. the "Gulf" family (of Mary Haas), the Coahuiltecan family, the Hokan family, etc., makes me suspicious of Ethnologue in general. (I also note that in Southern Athabaskan (Apachean) subfamily Ethnologue groups Chiricahua-Mescalero with Lipan & Jicarilla: this is erroneous).

Secondly, the situation of the Northern Athabaskan languages is rather complicated. The most recent work always states that classification is tentative. There is much borrowing and shared features, so the usual criteria of systematic phonetic correspondences and shared innovation does not give us very good subclassifications. There is here, the common issue of whether a tree diagram can represent language relationships. Some have called the Northern languages a "cohesive language complex".

I think that a less controversial grouping is the one given in Mithun's (1999) survey, i.e. 3 Athabaskan subgroups: Northern, Pacific Coast, Southern. (but, some take issue of whether the Pacific Coast langs should be grouped together.) You can see what is mostly Mithun's outline in the Athabaskan article. (the various subgroupings there are still tentative and may be mostly areal, not genetic. I should probably add a note to that effect.)

Anyway, this is why I find Ethnologue a less desirable classfication. peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 22:38, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)