Talk:Pipil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] pipil & root of Toltec civilization

The word pipil in the Nahua language signifies "Noble" or "Lord". It comes from the root of the Toltec civilization. - I'm not sure what this means. Is this saying that the word derives from a Toltec word? RickK 01:48, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What is the Tala empire? The only results for "Tala empire" on google all point to this page and this page on wikipedia clones. Furthermore the sentence "It comes from the root of the Toltec civilization." is very unclear. Did only the word come from the Toltecs, or are the Pipils themselves descendants of the Toltecs? --Mixcoatl 15:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
this tidbit is incorrect according to the dictionary/grammar by Campbell (1985) and a footnote on name in origin in Campbell (1997). peace – ishwar  (speak) 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bits of Data

I don't know much about these people, but a book on my shelf states that the modern Pipil speak a dialect of Nahuatl and that local placenames are also Nahautl, i.e. Aztec. It goes on to state, however, that the tribe's mythology, while not unrelated to the Aztec, more closely approximates the Mayan people who are their near neighbors.

  • Source: Bierhorst, John. The Mythology of Mexico and Central America, William Morrow 1990. ISBN 0-688-11280-3.

Note from the Nahuatl article: "Nawat dialect (Southern Nahuan, also known as "Pipil") --Pacific coast of Chiapas, Guatemala, El Salvador."

I looked over the Toltec article as well - perhaps that empire is the one referred to by the original author. The Toltec empire's capitol was "Tula" - not far off from the authors "Tala."

WBardwin 07:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Checked Pipil in an Encyclopedia on MesoAmerica. Small entry could be summarized as follows--

The Pipil are a loose confederation of Nahuatl speaking people, known for historic migrations, that currently live in El Salvador.

[edit] Translation from the Spanish

Checked the Spanish Wiki -- no dice. My Spanish is weak, but couldn't see anything relevant on the El Salvador page either. The link at the base of the article, to a University, seems to (via a search for Pipil) have this information in close to the original format. SPANISH SPEAKERS -- please take a look.

"A la llegada de los españoles a El Salvador en el siglo XVI, la etnia indígena preponderante era la de los pipiles.

El vocablo, Pipil, significa en Nahua "Noble o Señor" y conformaban una rama de la fantastísima civilización Tolteca, que dió tanto esplendor al Antiguo México y sus ruinas más espectaculares son los restos actuales de Tehotihucán, muy cercanos a la ciudad de México y Tula en el estado de Hidalgo.

Aunque en El Salvador, la llegada de gente de habla Nahuat, se da desde una época muy anterior al año 1000 D.C., la llegada masiva de los Pipiles a nuestro territorio, procedentes de México, ocurre aproximadamente por esa fecha .

La Historia, la Tradición, la Mitología y la Arqueología nos informan que esta gente llegó a El Salvador a raíz del colapso del Imperio de Tala. Tala, que habriá heredado las glorias de la civilización tolteca a la caída de Tehotihuacan, finalizó sus días en una cruenta guerra civil ocasionada aparentemente por un problema en la sucesión dinástica al trono de Tula. La facción perdedora en esta guerra, comandada por el célebre personaje Topilzín, que sus seguidores lo creían una reencarnación del dios Quetzalcoat, no halló mejor alternativa que abandonar México y emigrar a Centro América y así fue como la mayoría de esta gente se radicó en El Salvador actual.

En Guatemala, la única fundación importante que realizaron los Pipiles fue la de Excuintla. En El Salvador, el año de 1054 erigen las ciudades de Cuzcatlán y Tecpan Izalco. Los Pipiles en nuestra tierra encontraron un país poblado por gente de filiación mayoide y un lugar que tenía prácticamente todos los dones que puede brindar la naturaleza de sus volcanes a quienes también se debía la feracidad de su suelo. Los pobladores primitivos que se opusieran a la ocupación de su tierra generalmente eran aniquilados por los nuevos pobladores Nahuat, si esto no sucedía convivían pacíficamente. Se sabe que Topilzin fundó posteriormente un santuario a la diosa Nuictlán en la zona del lago de Guija, después parece que llegó a las ya entonces ruinas Mayas de Copán, después llegó hasta Nicaragua en donde funda una población llamada Nicarao. De allí no pierde su rastro. Los Pipiles introdujeron el culto generalizado al dios de la lluvia Tlaloc y a Xipe-Totec. Este último muy vinculado a los sacrificios humanos. En verdad su llegada implicó muchos cambios culturales en nuestro país. Las ruinas de Cihiuatán, en Aguilares y cercanas al volcán de Guazapa son los vestigios más notables de los Pipiles que poseemos. A los Pipiles también se les llama Yanquis.

Al arribo de los españoles, los Pipiles ya se habían apoderado de la casi totalidad del occidente del país y gran parte de su zona central llegando hasta los márgenes del río Lempa. Existían cuatro ramas importantes de Pipiles que eran; los Cuzcatlecos, que conformaban el cacicazgo mas importante de ellos en El Salvador con su capital en Cuzcatlán (Ahora la Villa de Antiguo Cuzcatlán en el gran San Salvador), los izalcos que eran muy ricos por su gran producción de cacao, los nonualcos, asentados en la zona central y famosos por su afición a la guerra y los mazahuas, dedicados a la cría de pequeños rebaños de venados de cola blanca, ahora casi extintos en el país. En la actualidad aún existen Pipiles puros en El Salvador y es la única etnia que habla su antiguo idioma. Dado el profundo mestizaje existente en El Salvador, un enorme porcentaje de los salvadoreños llevan sangre Pipil en sus venas."

The original author may have been trying to translate from the Spanish (or to English), and couldn't do any better than I can. WBardwin 08:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Checked an anthro book from the 1920's at the library -- they used the Empire of Tula (however the Spanish above uses both Tala and Tula) as a regular euphemism for the Toltec Empire. I'll change the information in the article to reflect that spelling. WBardwin 09:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the confusion here may be between the people and the location. Reference is made both to the place 'Tula', in Hidalgo, Mexico, renowned as the Toltec capital hence also the "Throne of Tula". The other references are to the ethnic group of the 'Tala', based in Tula. A bit confusing, admittedly, but as you can see from the following translation, the author considers the Tala to be the successors to the Toltec empire. I can not find anything about this at all, but will continue to look. In the meantime, I leave the 'factual content in doubt' up there. Here is the translation, hope it helps. I am currently working on other things, so can't really help with this article I'm afraid...I'll keep it watched though.
"Upon the arrival of the Spanish to El Salvador in the 16th Century, the predominant indiginous ethnic group were the Pipil
The word 'pipil' means "Noble" or "Lord" in Nahua and comprised of a branch of the fantastic Toltec civilisation, which gave much of the splendour of ancient Mexico of which the most spectacular ruins are the remains of Teotihuacan, very close to Mexico City and Tula, in the state of Hidalgo.
Although in El Salvador the arrival of Nahuat speakers dates to an era long before the year 1000 A.D., the major influx of the Pipil to our [sic] territory from Mexico occurred roughly by this date.
The history, the tradition, the mythology and the archaeology tell us that these people arrived in El Salvador as a result of the collapse of the Tala Empire. The Tala, who had inherited the glories of the Toltec civilisation at the fall of Teotihuacan, came to an end in a bloody civil war apparently brought about by a dispute regarding the dynastic succession to the throne of Tula. The faction that lost the war, led by the celebrated Topilzin, whose followers thought he was a reincarnation of the god Quetzalcoatl, did not have much of a choice but to leave Mexico and emigrate to Central America, and most of these ended up in what is now 'El Salvador'.
In Guatemala, the only significant settlement/foundation that the Pipil built was that of Escuintla. In El Salvador, in 1054 A.D., the cities of Cuzcatlan and Tecpan Izalco were founded. The Pipil in [our] land found a country populated by people of Mayan ethnicity and a place that had almost all the gifts that nature could give from her volcanoes to those that were also willing to suffer their fury. The primitive settlers that were opposed to the occupation of their lands were generally annihilated by the new Nahuat settlers, otherwise they coexisted peacefully. We know that Topilzin later founded a sanctuary to the god Nuictlan en the region of 'Guija lake', afterwards it appears that he arrived at the now ruined Mayan site of Copan (in Honduras), and subsequently went to Nicaragua where he founded the people known as 'Nicarao'. His legacy still remains there. The Pipil introduced the cults of the god of rain Tlaloc, and to Xipe-Totec. The latter was very keen on human sacrifice. It truth, their arrival signalled much change in [our country]. The ruins of Cihiuatan, those in Aguilares and close the the volcano 'Guazapa'are the most notable vestiges of the Pipil that we have. The Pipil are also called Yanquis (Yankees!?).
At the arrival of the Spanish, the Pipil had taken over almost all of teh west of the country, and a large proportion of the central area, up to the banks of the river Lempa. There were 4 important branches of the Pipil:
  • The Cuzcatlecos, who comprised the most important chieftanship of those in El Salvador, with their capital in Cuzcatlán (now the town of 'Old Cuzcatlán' in the great San Salvador)
  • The Izalcos, who were very wealthy by virtue of their great cocoa production
  • The Nonualcos, of the central region, renowned for their love of war
  • The Mazuahas, dedicated to raising White Tailed Deer, now nearly extinct in [this] country.
Today, there still exist 'pure' Pipil in El Salvador, and it is the single ethnic group here that speaks its ancient language. Given the significant mestization in El Salvador, a huge percentage of Salvadorans carry Pipil blood in their veins."

Pseudosocrates 19:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This information ties us closer to the Toltec Empire and Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, son of Mixcoatl, the most famous Toltec ruler. Maybe research in that area will give us more of the story, although the history of the Toltec seems to be based more on legend than data. WBardwin 08:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You cannot honestly think that this section needs inclusion in the article. It presents no sources. It talks about a civilization which no serious scholars believe to be anything other than myth. Including such unsourced rubbish in an article which is otherwise serious is what gives wikipedia ann wikiality a bad name. I add unsourced an NPOV tags to the entire article untill this mess is cleaned. Maunus 10:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Michael Smith (who is a respected and published scholar in the field) wrote in talk section of the Toltec article that: "This article is heavily biased. It relies upon the mythical interpretations of the Aztecs and ignores much of modern archaeological and historical scholarship. It is extremely unlikely that there is any historical validity at all to Aztec historical-mythical accounts for periods prior to the Aztlan migrations (which includes most of what the Aztecs said about the toltecs, including the names of reputed Toltec kings). The justification for this statement is found in

a paper in press at Dumbarton Oaks.

The notion of a "Toltec empire" is another Aztec fantasy. See this paper
See my book, The Aztecs (Blackwell, 2nd edition, 2003) for more comments on the toltecs and why Aztec accounts of toltecs are heavily biased and suspect.
-Michael E. Smith". I suggests you read those two paper

. Maunus 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Now!

Thanks to Pseudosocrates' translation from the Spanish, I think we have enough information to remove the dispute notice. I've added information gathered and think the article is starting to make sense. Edits very welcome -- as the prose is still rough. WBardwin 07:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I don't think we should say Teotihuacan was Toltec, however. -- Infrogmation 03:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - although three out of my four sources did!! I put a weasel word "...at the time of the Toltecs..." which is technically true as they might have sacked the place. Will look for more confirmation, but Toltec info is at best fuzzy. Thanks for looking it over. WBardwin 03:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] El Salvador - Relevence of data on Lenca/Najochan

Once the Pipil nation was conquered, the Spanish invaded the eastern region (the Maya Lenca kingdom of Najochan). The invasion of the Lenca kingdom was headed by Luis de Moscoso who met ten years of Lenca resistance. The Lenca rulers refused to sing any treaty or abdication and apointed a war chief named Lempira. In 1993, the Lenca comunity reinstated their crown to an eighty years old noble descendant their Royal Symbol (Crown Princess).
I took out the term Mayan from Lecan kingdom, firstly and mostly Lencan is not part of the Macro-Mayan languages and not related to Xinca either for those who enjoy reading Sharer or sugested by Andrews pg 181(Campbell 1997:166-167). If one looks at Quelepa in Eastern El Salvador in San Miguel deapartment, there really is not much signs of Mayan influence , albeit a small "mayan like" plazuela group is present. Quelepa, it seems to be a highly distinct ethnic group (Andrews 1976:179-186) also Salvadorian Lencan and Honduran Lencan are not closely related, thus it seems that the two languages of the Lencan family divereged quite early (Campbell 1997:167).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.113.79 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006.

Information above inserted by an anonymous 4-14-05. Looks like the beginning of a different article or an inclusion for the History of El Salvador, rather than appropriate for this one. A sentence about continued resistance by the Mayan neighbors might do here. I will rewrite in a couple of days to give the anon a chance to expand or change this info. WBardwin 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph from article until source material can be found. WBardwin 17:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indians of the northern highlands of Honduras and El Salvador who are somewhat intermediate culturally between the Maya to the north and circum-Caribbean peoples such as the Kuna to the south. The aboriginal culture of the Lenca has virtually disappeared and is not well known. It is thought that formerly each village was autonomous, controlled by a chief and a council… Encyclopedia Britanica 2005.

more information found on the El Salvador article. I will try and create a sentence/paragraph and refer to that article as well. WBardwin 08:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sources

hi. i have been looking at L. Campbell's grammar of Pipil & i see that there is factually wrong information in this article. someone probably needs to consult a real ethnography of Pipil instead of using these general sources. peace – ishwar  (speak) 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Gidday Ish. Thanks for correcting my error re Nawat/Nahuatl, I should have checked my sources more widely. Nice work expanding on the language. I tend to agree that some of the other historical and ethnographical claims made here, many presumably sourced from the Salvadorean site mentioned above, need to be cross-checked with some other publications. Their origins and history is perhaps not as confidently known as some of these seem to imply. In particular, I'm not sure it can be established that they specifically were responsible for bringing knowledge of Tlaloc and Xipe Totec to the area.
Re the description of the Pipil as an Uto-Aztecan people- I've not commonly seen this used in the sense of a cultural or ethnic classification, rather more as a language family. I'm not sure, maybe describing them as a Nahua people would be better? Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
i know very little about Nahua things. i am just not clear on the accuracy of the article (precisely because i know so little). i changed to "Nahua people". it seems to me that the term Nahua is used to mean different things (i.e. either including or excluding Pochutec and/or Pipil). so i took it out pending my figuring it out. peace – ishwar  (speak) 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the note on the Pipil talk page -- if you can find a Pipil ethnography, please make the corrections. As I have no Spanish, I've been looking for one in English (at the university and public libraries) for most of the year. So far, no luck. Thank for your interest. WBardwin 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

hi.
i didnt mention it, but i was referring (mostly) to the derivation of Pipil from the Nahua word meaning "nobility". i dont know if someone just made this guess up or if one of the sources used stated this. not knowing anything about Pipil peoples, i simply question the accuracy of the article overall. perhaps this is unwarranted. i just cant be sure.
the other reason that i have doubts is that in Campbell's grammar, he says that the interpretation of the primary sources is "not without complications". the article does not have any account of these different interpretations of Pipil scholars, so this furthers my distrust.
i expanded the biblio to include what Campbell says are the primary sources & the (major?) interpretations (at least until 1985). other works written in English may be further interpretations or just summaries of the previous research. Campbell has a short bit on ethnohistory (pp. 6-13) where he quotes some sections of the original sources (which are Torquemada, Oviedo, Ixtlilxochitl, Clavijero, and Fuentes y Guzmán).
i'll type up some of what Campbell says. peace – ishwar  (speak) 16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
it looks like the Pipil = Nobility comes from the first edit of the article & is perhaps from this site: www.ufg.edu.sv/ufg/cultura/culturageneral/HISTORIA/historiaprecolombina.htm. – ishwar  (speak) 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell (1985: 9-13)

Interpretations of these accounts have been varied and at times quite controversial. For example, Squier took the palm tree in the Mexican representation of Aztlan, the legendary northern homeland of the Aztecs, to mean that Nahua speakers must have originated in the south, migrating from Nicaragua and El Salvador to central Mexico. Today all hold Squier's view to be quite mistaken, agreeing that the Nahua speakers come into Mesoamerica from the north, with subsequent migrations into Central America from central Mexico.
Most interpretations attempt to analyze Torquemada and Oviedo. According to Torquemada, the Nicarao left Soconusco (the Pacific Coast of Chiapas) "seven or eight ages or lives of an old man" before. This "age of an old man" has generally been interpreted as the period called in Nahuatl huehuetiliztli, which is two 52-year cycles of the Mesoamerican calendar, or 104 years. Consequently, Jiménez Moreno and most other scholars have taken this to mean that the Pipil migration to Central America took place around 728 to 832 year before its telling in 1580, or approximately 800 A.D. Lehmann, in contrast, held a different opinion...
Lehmann, continuing his criticism of Torquemada, identified Oviedo's Ticomega and Maguatega, from whence the Nicarao came, with a Tecuman in Morelos and a Miahuatlan in Puebla, sites near Cholula...
It is not clear why Lehmann insisted that the Nicarao are distinct from and later in their arrival to Central America than the Pipils. Indeed, Lehmann gives no indications concerning the sources or contents of the other legends supposedly fused by Torquemada, and he forgot that Torquemada spoke of their arrival in Soconusco from Anahuac, identified with the Valley of Cholula. Thus, Torquemada was not in fact guilty, as Lehmann's claimed, of placing the scene erroneously in Soconusco instead of near Cholula. Nor did Lehmann present any substantial linguistic evidence to support this view. In fact, his belief that Pipil is older seems to rather stem from a dependence on the erroneous classification of Nahua dialects into the so-called t, tl-, and l-dialects, coupled with his conviction that the t-dialects, of which Pipil is a representative, are older than tl-dialects.
Lehmann's equation of t-dialects with the Toltecs and hence Pipil (a t-dialect) migrations with the Toltec dispersion has been important, not because it is necessarily accurate, but because it has been influential. For example, Luckenbach and Levy (1980) and Fowler (1981) present such nearly identical conclusions about multiple migrations (with Pipil and Nicarao separated), Toltec connections, proposed dates, and the importance of t-dialects (as opposed particularly to tl-dialects), that it is difficult to believe their conclusions were not strongly influenced by Lehmann's opinions.
In spite of Lehmann's influence, most modern investigators have accepted Torquemada's account as accurate, and joining it with Oviedo's, they have proposed a reasonable picture of Pipil ethnohistory. According to their reconstructions, the Pipil left the area of Cholula, Puebla (specifically Ticomega and Maguatega) in order to escape the tyranny of the historical Olmecs. They came to southern Veracruz, but shortly after were displaced again, arriving in Xolotlan (the Soconusco Coast of Chiapas). Later, once again to escape the historical Olmec opression, they left Soconusco, passing through several places, leaving colonies in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and even in Costa Rica and Panama. Their departure is dated at around 800 A.D., based on the "7 o 8 edades de viejo" of Torquemada's account.
As mentioned, in contrast to this view, Fowler (1981) has taken a position in sympathy with Lehmann's. He sees "Pipil" migrations in successive steps or waves from ca. 800 A.D. to ca. 1250 or 1300 A.D. from central Mexico to the southern Gulf region to various areas of Central America. After an extensive review of ethnohistory, archaelogy, and linguistics (including place names), he concludes for El Salvador, "probably for at least five centuries prior to (the Conquest), almost all of this (western and central) portion of El Salvador west and south of the Lempa River was occupied by the Pipil". He also believes in a "total or partial control of this (Usulután coastal lowland) region by the Nonualco Pipil in the Late Postclassic as a strong possibility". He equates these Nonualco with a later migration, connected with the Nicarao and assumed to be posterior to the Pipil. In his conclusions, based in large part on his glottochronological study, he placed the "first wave of Pipil-Nicarao migrations out of central Mexico into the Veracruz coastal lowlands and via the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to Central America sometime around A.D. 700 to 900". "Later Nahuat separations between approximately A.D. 900 and 1350 ... were probably directly or indirectly related to the expansion of the Toltec empire and its subsequent demise ... An important Toltec-influenced Pipil group, the Nonoalca, pushed into El Salvador at this time, displacing many of the earlier Pipil inhabitants of the region. The movement of the Nicarao into Nicaragua sometime after A.D. 1200 appears to be correlated with these events".
While this opinion merits careful consideration, the evidence for multiple migrations (with the Nonoalco, connected with the Nicarao, arriving later) is at present not convincing. The greatest reservations are raised by the fact that it is based so heavily on glottochronology, with no direct linguistic or ethnohistorical evidence to support it. In general, not only are the glottochronological dates contested, but also it is not clear whether the ethnohistorical dates are to be interpreted as dealing with the assumed original migration from the Cholula area or with later movements out of Soconusco toward Central America. However, if in the end we could establish an accurate correlation of these dates with the conquest of Cholula by the historical Olmecs and the departure of the Pipils from there at about 800 A.D., then perhaps we would be in a better position to explain the nature of the postulated relationships shared by Pipil, Isthmus (Gulf), and Sierra de Puebla Nahua. Given the consensus that the Pipil left central Mexico and migrated first to the southern Gulf region, it is to be expected that the Pipil language would share some linguistic traits with varieties from that area. The question remains, however, about how the differences are to be understood and about how long Pipil has been separated from whatever its nearest neighbors or relatives may be.

– ishwar  (speak) 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article split

Has been touched on before, but this article could really benefit from being split into separate articles, one for the language and one for the people.--cjllw | TALK 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I always favor splits along those lines.--Rockero 07:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a Pipil Language article

I am a brand-new Wikipedia user so please forgive me for any faux pas I may commit and kindly put me on the right track. If it is in order for me to do so, I would like to offer to write a draft for a Pipil (or rather Nawat, as I shall argue) language page, or at least the linguistic part of one (i.e. phonology, grammar etc.). My reason for thinking I may be well qualified for doing this is that I have recently returned from over two years in El Salvador working on this language. True, some of my work is original research, but I am also probably as well-acquainted as anyone with the relevant earlier bibliography. I'd appreciate any help regarding Wikipedia procedures, etiquette or whatever to set me in the right direction, as well as opinions and suggestions concerning this idea.--A R King 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome! And please go ahead. You would be very welcome to write such a a page, you should probably use the existing pages on Nahuatl language and Nahuatl Dialects as a reference, and try to keep out original research and instead use the earlier bibliography. But be bold! We'll help you sort out the details later. I was personally under the impression that Pipil was eitther diseased or terminally moribund, the last survey I have seen recorded only 20 speakers. How many speakers have you worked with? Also I don't think you shall use the "nawat" nomenclature as the title since pipil is the established term in previous research although you can of course present arguments in the articles for using such a name, but I will remind you that many dialects that are not "pipil" also use /t/ for /tl/ for example in Vera Cruz, Northern Puebla etc. so Nawat is not a very accurate term since all the t-dialects are covered by this name. Maunus 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Given your encouragement, I am far more likely to give it a try. I will certainly take a look at the pages you mention at the first opportunity (unfortunately I have to work for a living and my time is rather limited). I am also willing to discuss the questions you ask and issues you raise, but wonder whether this paragraph is the right place to do that, since it will probably take us off on a tangent (or more than one!) from its purported topic of 'Creating a Pipil Language article'. Perhaps for the question of the name of the language, the topic following this one would be the place. I shall modify the heading (I hope that is okay). To answer about the present state of the language, I shall open a third topic at the bottom. --A R King 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's now a couple of weeks since I wrote here suggesting I do an article on the language. I've been working on it since then and am now nearly ready to put something up. I'd appreciate comments when I do. What I have is a main article on the language and two breakaways: a longish one that is a grammar sketch, and a shorter typological overview. Apart from these, the language article will include a section that compares Pipil to other Nahua varieties. I consider the grammar and typology articles fairly complete (any more complete and they'd have been too long!), but the language article is more open-ended. Since the current Pipil (not language) article contains language stuff, I am thinking of moving that over to the language article rather than writing duplicate information. I haven't done that yet so we'll see what it looks like when I do. I also still need to put in all my references. I guess I had better do that before displaying, or else I'll probably get into trouble! --A R King 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pipil or Nawat?

Changed na:wat and introduced the most accepted classification. I had personally not seen any other names for this language than Pipil or Central American Nahuat, and conducting a search on google the only hits were for this page. I think Pipil should be preferred throughout the article. Also Campbells arguments for the splitting of Pipil as a language by it self have not been accepted and the currently accepted classifications of Lastra and Canger place it in the eastern periphery of the Nahuatl dialects subgroups. Maunus 11:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Campbell uses Pipil, reflecting the majority academic usage and the 'linguistic literature' as Campbell himself observes in the first sentence of Chapter I of his 1985 book:
'[It] is known in the linguistic literature as Pipil, although its speakers call it na:wat in the language itself and Nahuate in Spanish.'
But we should also read on further, for he continues: 'Here it is called Pipil because this usage is so strongly entrenched in the scientific literature that it could not easily be changed. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that Na:wat (Nahuate) may gain more general acceptance in honor of and in deference to its speakers.'
Thus Campbell's own opinion on this seems pretty clear and clearcut. I am in correspondence with Campbell and he still (over twenty years on) continues to call it Nahuate in Spanish in 'private' conversation.
I'd now like to add some further information of my own on this. First of all, 'academic usage' or 'linguistic literature' both mean, in practice, 'outside El Salvador' (and hence far, far away from the Pipils, for whom even San Salvador is at some considerable psychological distance!) and beyond the ken of Pipils, among whom there are no academics or linguists. So it is an exonym, a name used by non-Xes to designate Xes. The people are called Pipils (pipiles) by everyone except for the Pipils themselves, whom I have never heard (or read, in transcriptions) referring to themselves as such. But then they don't seem to have a native name for themselves of any kind, nor are they in the habit of referring to themselves using any specific term (for whatever reason; perhaps this may be a reflection of a damaged concept of self-identity). So Pipil is really all we have for a name for the people, and it is generally used when other El Salvadoreans speak about the Pipils (which is not very often); and it is the accepted term.
However, as Campbell says, the language is not referred to as Pipil by either Pipils, by 'ordinary' El Salvadoreans, or even (for the most part) in El Salvador academic or 'educated' circles. (I know of one exception, Dr. Jorge Lemus, but only in writing; in conversation he too, like everyone else in El Salvador, says 'náhuat'.)
This usage is furthermore being followed by present-day non-El Salvadoreans taking a serious interest in indigenous issues, language recovery etc. (for example Monica Ward, author of an on-line language course, and myself, among others). What all these people (Pipils, El Salvadoreans, foreigners working in the area) use is náhuat (in Spanish) = Nawat (in their own language or in English).
Notice one difference from Campbell: the Spanish form 'nahuate' seems to have become obsolete since he worked there, as I encountered this term not once in conversation or contemporary writing. Having said all that, I do take your point about 'Nawat' equally being able to refer to some varieties spoken in Mexico, and if for that reason alone accept that this discussion is not over yet. --A R King 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It is true that we should keep the discussion going, afterall we have recently renamed all the mayan language pages to their Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala orthographies to reflect a larger de degree of endonymity (is that even a word?). However some pages still use exonyms and will have to keep using them simply because people will not be able to find the topics they look for if we use the endonyms that are often unknown (no one will look for the "ñu savi" if they want to read about Mixtecs). I would suggest calaling the article Pipil language and open the article "the Pipil language, called Nawat by it's speakers the Pipils of El Salvador..."Maunus 06:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Another point to consider is that apparently speakers of Isthmus Nahuatl refer to their language/dialect by a different name, mela'tájtol, whereas those of 'Pipil' happen to call theirs na(:)wat. That is to say, there may not in reality be a serious conflict entailed in designating the latter Nawat. I'm also not sure whether in the Isthmus case you would want to give it a page as a language or as a Nahuatl dialect. --A R King 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The state of the language today

In answer to the question above about the present situation, here is a brief answer based on recent personal observation and what I know from involvement in the current movement for language recovery Iniciativa para la Recuperación del Idioma Náhuat (IRIN) (subsequently given the additional Nawat name of Te Miki Tay Tupal, and also a second website here).

There are still a few speakers around, though nobody knows how many, and they tend not to use it much. While most are elderly, I know one who is not over fifty and there is some (limited) interest among young people.

I don't want to paint an over-rosy picture here, the overall situation is NOT good by any means, but it's not quite dead yet either, and response to the recovery initiative so far has been fairly encouraging, though an enormous amount of work will need to be done to turn the tide back and nobody really knows what results if any we can expect.

One reason why we do not and cannot know how many speakers there are is that knowledge of the language has become a very private thing that many speakers are not willing to admit to or share. Many will simply deny they know it, but we've learnt that that doesn't always mean they don't. The 'official' word is that it's almost dead but in working with the people we have occasionally found fragments of evidence to make us think otherwise. Another reason, that compounds with this one, why we don't know how many speakers there are is that it is not impossible that there may be some in remote places close to impossible for us to access. And yet another reason, again interconnected with the others, is that many existing speakers fail to network together, they don't know about each other, which is bad for survival of the language but also bad for trying to learn about further speakers.

Another dimension of the whole issue is of course the possibility of some people relearning the language and becoming new speakers. And there is no sharp dividing line because you can have native semi-speakers taking an interest and improving their competence. So those are, in brief, some of the things to consider; it's all in all a pretty shadowy question and anyone claiming to have a definite answer is thereby to be suspected of not having the right one or the last word; and in there amidst those shadowy lines is where we have been working to try to improve the hopes expressed in the Nawat name of IRIN chosen by native speakers themselves: Te miki tay tupal! (What is ours will not die.) --A R King 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Pipil

I'm mostly away from Wikipedia right now so don't want to get involved too deeply but I have a few observations to throw the way of anyone listening about the little paragraph named "Modern Pipil" at the end of the article.

To begin with, I'm not sure about that title. Firstly, what does it mean? "Modern Pipil" sounds to me mostly like it refers to the modern Pipil language, but of course it doesn't (although Nawat is mentioned). Presumably then it actually refers to the modern Pipil people, in which case it might be better to say "The modern Pipil" or even "The modern Pipils". A more serious problem I have here, though, is that as it is written it is not terribly obvious to me that the paragraph is actually about the modern Pipils. Who are they, the 90% who have some indigenous ancestors, or the 1% of pure indigenous ancestry? If the former, these do not consider themselves "Pipils" and are not so considered by others (at least in El Salvador), so the heading would be a bit obscure and misleading to say the least. And if the latter, which I assume to be the case, then the problem is that the paragraph really says very little about them (just a part of one sentence towards the end), and actually concentrates on the other issues, which is the customary way of ignoring the indigenous peoples out of existence in El Salvador itself while pretending to be interested in them, and won't do.

Having said all that, I'd also like to add that the wording of the paragraph is confusing and inaccurate because it glosses over the fact that the Pipils are not the only indigenous group in El Salvador and certainly not by any means the ancestral source of all present-day Salvadorans. Thus the Pipil is only one component in the ancestry of the 90% of mestizos referred to, but the way it's put seems to be assuming that Pipil and indigenous in El Salvador are practically the same thing. The Pipils attracted most attention when the Spanish turned up because of their political and military predominance in the centre and southwest of the area now called El Salvador and probably also by the fact that their language was intelligible to the Mexican interpreters who accompanied them, and the Pipils of today have the added distinction of being the only indigenous group whose language is still spoken by anyone at all, but that does not mean that nearly all the people in El Salvador are descended from Pipils just because they are mestizos. Depending on the region and family history, people may have Lencan, Cacaoperan or Mayan blood. They may also have a mixture of course, but that would depend largely on the degree of mobility of earlier generations.

Sorry to have gone on for so long, but I have one more thing to say quickly. The description of the location of modern Pipils as "near the Guatemalan border" is not quite accurate. Of course El Salvador is so small that it could all be described as near the Guatemalan border in a sense, but within the relative geography of El Salvador, the department of Sonsonate (where most of the few remaining Nawat speakers probably are) would not normally be thought of as all that close to the border. It's like describing Oregon and New York City as "near the Canadian border". But here I'm no doubt splitting hairs. --A R King 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)