Talk:Zuni language

Ashiwi and Shiwi

Shiwi is the native name for the Zuni language. Ashiwi is the native term the Zuni use to refer to the populace, and it means "the People". Shiwi is literally "Zuni". (See Newman's Zuni Dictionary listed in the bibliography). Shiwi is a nominal particle that in Zuni can refer to persons, /a:w- is a (1) verbal pronominal prefix for plural absolutive or (2) a derivational prefix pluralizing particles referring to persons ("/" meaning the glottal stop and ":" referring to a glide). Before a consonant, the prefix loses its glide and becomes "/a". Ashiwi is the term used to pluralize Shiwi. In regard to cultural norms, the pluralization of Shiwi, that is, affixing /a, does not refer to a group of individuals, but the many as a single unit. See the bibliography in the article, particularly the essay by Kenneth Miner, International Journal of American Linguistics.

Reply: how do we request that the page be moved to the correct name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.46.152 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

External Link comment

For future reference to editors under this section. I added a link to an audio file for the Zuni language using the text "Zuni language, audio files of the Zuni Language by Zuni speaker Wells Mahkee". The owner of the link and files edited it to "Zuni language, presented by Zuni Spirits". I reversed the changes stating to the owner that they could not state their business name in the visible text. They then removed the link and expressed to me that they did not want their link on this page if they could not use their business name rather than the name of the Zuni speaker. Feedback welcome on this issue, but until then I guess the audio files cannot be listed. Amerindianarts 8 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

• BTW, I did contact the owner of the link prior to including it in the section.Amerindianarts 8 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
• ACTUALLY, no one asked permission to link to my files or website. I found it on my own and made changes since I didn't appreciate the unauthorized use. Had the author of this page approached me in a reasonable manner I might have taken a different stance. Zunispirits (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• If you have a website everybody, including Wikipedia, is allowed to link to it in whichever way they want. --Alfredie (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it probably fails WP:EL anyway since it is a personal website, and he doesn't want it links, and we certainly aren't going to let him use it to promote his site, we can just forget about it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lineage comment

I'm currently reading Nancy Yaw Davis' book, which is quite fascinating. While I expect to know more about the connection between the Zuni and Japanese languages in a few days' time, I've been studying Japanese since 1989, and currently earn my bread as a translator. I've also studied some Korean and Chinese, as well as a couple Polynesian languages (mostly Maori and Hawaiian), in addition to getting a minor in German literature in university -- basically, I'm a language geek.  :) But when I was reading over this interesting article on Zuni, I tripped up a bit on the description of Japanese as an isolate. The page on the Japanese language itself does present a number of competing theories on the origins of the language, but no view of Japanese as an isolate holds much currency that I'm aware of. Just in my own studies in working to learn Korean, I find the grammatical similarities too close to be mere chance. Words (that are not borrowed from Chinese) are almost completely different, but the grammar, even to the point of some particles being identical, matches quite cleanly in many areas, enough for me to personally lean towards the first two bullet points under "History and Classification".

The theory presented by Nancy Yaw Davis regarding the Zuni language portrayed in the "Zuni Enigma" is far fetched and borders science fiction and fantasy. Her book is another example of falsehoods made into truths and is perpetuated by mass media through her book. My truth revealing comments were banned from the opinion section of Amazon.com at her request. This shows you to what degree and means are put forth to prohibit perspectives from the indigenous people being written about. So much for her open mindedness in the research.

Nevertheless, you can download RealPlayer and listen online [1] to the live rebuttal by Zuni Councilmen, religious leaders and official representatives on the book and theory on the Zuni Language by Nancy Yaw Davis. The nationally syndicated Native America Calling'[2] radio talk show on NPR interviews Yaw Davis asks the following questions: Did a group of thirteenth century Japanese pilgrims come to the American Southwest and merge with the people of Zuni? Did these Asians influence the language and religion of the Zuni people? According to Dr. Nancy Yaw Davis, the answer to both questions is yes. She claims to have uncovered evidence that suggests the Zuni were visited by Japanese travelers some seven hundred years ago. Is it true? Guests include Nancy Yaw Davis, author of "The Zuni Enigma" and Malcolm Bowekety, member of the Zuni Nation. Recordings provided by Native America Calling and American Indian Radio on Satellite (Airos.org) [3] Shiwi 8 July 2005 1:15(GMT-7:00)

I think the above comments concerning fastasy and science fiction are very closed-minded. I spoke to Nancy Yaw Davis concerning photos of Randy Nahohai's 'Deer in House' and 'Rosette' pottery patterns a year prior to publication and I perceived an individual working for the advancement of her science whom in no way meant any disservice to the Zuni people, or any Native American people. I read the book after publication with a sceptical attitude, but found that she has followed the course of scientific methodology and opened up an area of discussion that needs further scrutiny by anthropologists. How can one be so naive as to eliminate the possibilities of trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific contact in Native American prehistory, or history prior to Columbus? Archaeological evidence shows that the cultures of the Americas are much younger than those cultures radiating from the so-called cradle of civilization. The beings that peopled the Americas had to come from somewhere and it would be completely naive and closed-minded not to suppose that these migrations were continuous, and had occurred for many thousands and thousands of years.

Of course people are bound to be upset when the status quo is disrupted, but shaking the foundations of a science has happened continually throughout history and has always led to a better understanding of our world. While just a theory, Davis' book is true to its science, a worthy donation to anthropology, and entirely appropriate to the Zuni language page, which is dedicated to presenting information in the spirit of possible further research and investigation. It's contents are currently neither true nor false, but they are one or the other which as a requisite renders "fantasy and science fiction" as a mere opinion, and opinion has no place on the main page.

I listened to the audio files and found them inconclusive except for the feelings of the Zuni, with whom I can whole-heartedly sympathize. But they have perservered to maintain their identity over the centuries. Houses, pick-up trucks, refridgeration, television, etc., have done nothing to change that, but assimilation happens. It's fact of history. Can you imagine a 16th century Francescan priest extending his arms towards the heavens and praying on behalf of the Zuni for support (Sp. apoyar) in times of drought, and perhaps the Spanish verb apoyar being adopted by the Zuni as Apoya(nne) to mean "sky" (Newman), stone cover (or "sky" per Bunzel), or "all-covering Father" (Cushing). True or false, the inquiry is necessary. It's called science. Even if Davis' theory is eventually disproved, it has served a scientific purpose in the elimination of possibilites, which is really what science is all about. I would say that it is no wonder that "truth-revealing" comments were removed, for in light of all the evidence it could have been no more than an opinion, which is not the content sought for the pages at Wikipedia.Amerindianarts 9 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

PS, the entry you made was preserved as a footnote to Davis' book as well as a link in the external links. You really didn't need to put it on this page.Amerindianarts 9 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Again, applying your own words, the theory of Davis is neither true or false, but is a mere theory or opinion, which is not the content sought for the main pages at Wikipedia. Absence of evidence for your hypothesis does not mean that the opposite of the hypothesis is true, nor does it mean that the hypothesis must be false. Likewise, absence of evidence against your hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is true, or that the opposite of your hypothesis is false. Scientific discovery is not factual unless a hypothesis or theory is proven again and again in due course of time to be true. This test of time has not passed, but still fails in Yaw Davis's book and therefore is still an opinion. It is not the process of modern day scientific discovery to profess a theory as truth until it is disproved. The research is so young and fragile, it has no business on the main pages of Wikipedia and should remain in the discussion section of Wikipedia as you suggest for my opinions to be.

In addition, just because opinions are published in a book does not constitute as fact. Just because opinions are not published in a book does not constitute as false. Therefore, you should realize that the Zuni language is of oral tradition, which forces researchers of today to rely on past interpretations of ethnologists such as Frank Hamilton Cushing, Ruth Bunzel and Matilda Cox Stevenson. It is a known fact by seasoned southwestern anthropologist that mistruths were told by Zunis to keep the sanctity of religious and sacred thing to be pure. Therefore, making correlations as fact in all cases according to writting by the authors above is not appropriate.

I am not so naïve to the idea of migration as you suggest, but I recommend to you to eliminate the theory for the Japanese-Zuni relationship, but instead assess other tribes such as the Athabascans, Navajos, and the Apaches, who have a nomadic ancestry. In fact, Navajos look a lot more like Japanese and have Sand Paintings as the Buddist Monks do in there culture. If science is to be served right, I suggest you start there yourself researching other tribes before making a pure correlation. Reveal your own truth and do not assume that I am ignorant and closed minded as you are. My comments were removed because I suggested Yaw Davis to research other tribes as mentioned above.

Yes, I do know Randy Nahohai through marriage. The 'Deer in House' and 'Rosette' pottery patterns are contemporary interpretations of archaic designs. He does not suggest Japanese influence as Yaw Davis suggests.

The biological and scientific methodology needs more rigor than 60% correlation of the languages. Any language has 60% correlation in sound and syntax. In addition, it should be noted that DNA of any human on this earth only has a difference of 0.001%, thereby emphasizing that all humans are related no matter how you look at it.

Your skepticism is so easily dissolved based on a few references in Japanese and “baby-talk” in Zuni provided by an individual that had no experience that Frank Hamilton Cushing or Ruth Bunzel had when the language was the closest to purity. Your naivitivity and validation is a disservice to linguists and the Zuni people to make such correlations. Please consider yourself to opening your mind to other tribes for analysis.

Besides I am an accomplished master's degreed scientist and engineer from the Pueblo of Zuni and fluent in the Zuni Language. I fully understand the importance of scientific methodology and rigor. I work along side Japanese people on a day to day basis and have discussed in Japanese and Zuni and exchange ideas on the languages. We have not discovered any correlation at all between the two languages as Yaw Davis suggests. This is the purest empirical study a scientist can have, and Yaw Davis fails to conduct one. Shiwi 8 July 2005 21:00(GMT-7:00)

PS In your statement: "How can one be so naive as to eliminate the possibilities of trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific contact in Native American prehistory, or history prior to Columbus?...The beings that peopled the Americas had to come from somewhere and it would be completely naive and closed-minded not to suppose that these migrations were continuous, and had occurred for many thousands and thousands of years." Likewise, you too are so naive to believe that all origins of humans have derived in European or Asian decent. Where did the people come from who populated Europe and Asia? My answer is your answer, they were always there, just as all the Puebloans were including Zuni. Shiwi 8 July 2005 22:34(GMT-7:00)

Firstly, I made no inference that Randy had made the correlation. When she contacted me about photos I then referred her to Randy. Randy told me she contacted him and made arrangements but I do not know the content of that communication nor did I infer that I did. I simply stated that I talked to the woman and she was sincere. Here I think you are very unscientifically putting words in my mouth.

Elimination is a basic scientific method, despite what you think. Having the book on the main page is not closed minded. It is there hopefully to incite intelligent discussion and research. It has every place on the page. If you want to have it removed you can contact Wikipedia resolutions for relief.

I also did not profess the theory as truth as you say (again putting words in my mouth). I am quite specific in stating that it is neither true nor false, and like it or not this is the first step in scientific reasoning and methodology. Nor did I validate the theory. It is there for people to see in the spirit of science. To eliminate its accessibilty to readers would be a disservice to them. In no way, shape, or form am I validating this theory, even though I think that physical evidence is better than you care to give credit. As a matter of fact, every citation on the main page can be considered an opinion. That is why the main page states that the Zuni language is an isolate, because no prior research has shown itself to be true or false. Should we remove all references? Should we leave the page blank?? This is certainly a problem in the analysis of languages that have maintained an oral tradition. But even in a language such as Zuni which has a strict oral tradition, change, or a lack of change, cannot be assessed.

I suggest you either try to get the entry removed through Wikipedia, or come back when you can argue within the context of what I write, i.e. don't put words in my mouth in order to make your position. Your education is of no avail if you can't argue within the scope of what is said.Amerindianarts 9 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Both sides of the controversy are presented on the main page, Davis' book and the audio files, as it should be in the spirit of inquiry. This is exactly why it is not an opinion. Both sides of the controversy are presented. After all, what kind of an education would you have if you were deprived of a controversial topic simply because someone thought it was false. You can always creat a subdirectory off of the main page, footnoted from the main page, e.g from "likeness of the Zuni and Japanese", and state your case, in an objective manner. Despite the popularity or unpopularity of respective positions, there is always the hypothetical "neither true nor false" which should be adhered to.Amerindianarts 9 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

I made no inferences that you suggested that Randy made correlations with Japanese, but I did state that Yaw Davis did. Therefore, I did not put words in your mouth. In addition, I simply provided additional information about the 'Deer in House' and 'Rosette'. Read carefully. BTW, why did you bring him up?

I agree that elimination is part of the scientific process and surely, Zuni should be eliminated as a possibility. Nevertheless, the research should continue on with the assessment of other tribes.

I am not suggesting to eliminate the accessibility to the works of Yaw Davis, but rather to place her works appropriately in the Discussion/opinion section. No, we should not remove all reference. Moreover, we should make every reference available including mine. This discussion is documented now, and has become a part of scientific analysis.

I did not put words in your mouth in any shape or form. I simply made truthful generalizations in the way "researchers" manifest the validity of their own works by constant bombardment of falsehoods. I am speaking of Yaw Davis who needs to carry out the research further. It is not scientificly professional to publish what one can not prove, and place the burden on others to disprove. We all agree that further research must be done, so I pose questions and make suggestions in areas that needs to be answered by the original author of the Zuni Enigma'.

Do not make any personal attacks in regards to my education. You know as well as I do that it was uncalled for.

I am sure that Yaw Davis's and your intentions were in good faith for Zuni, but ignoring the Zuni point of view is wrong. I am sorry we must disagree.

I will not take action to have your entry removed in regards to the Zuni Enigma, but I recommend to you to correctly place her reference in the discussion section for questioning. Shiwi 8 July 2005 23:05(GMT-7:00)

Not making attacks on your education. Simply wanted you to use it. Take my suggestion and write an article on the subject linked to the main page. That is what is desired. That is what is needed in the spirit of inquiry. I understand the possibility or transgressing taboos, but done carefully...otherwise the argument is at a stalemate. I do not ignore the Zuni position either. I love the Zuni and it shows in all my work. I have been studying the culture for years and have plenty of Zuni friends. But I am a philosopher trained in methodology and have to present both sides. I don't think that our disagreement is as substantial as you think. I agree that Davis' should do more, possibly on-site research, but how much can the Zuni reveal?? Also, without DNA testing, how much can be accomplished? Another impediment is the current mindset of anthropologists. Davis stated it very well in "a gopher did it". She is impeded in her work, for certain.

I also desire further conversations with a Zuni speaker concerning the word "/a". Pehaps the possible correlation between its use as a word for "stone" as well as the use as as an absolute plural nominative. Its substantive and non-substantive use. Does it integrate, or absolve the lack of a distinction between what I refer to as spiritual and non-spiritual matter? I know this dichotmoy is vague, but for lack of better transliteral terms...

As for a discussion section, that's what this page is for. I'm afraid that to put a discussion section on the main page would be edited beyond believe and make the page to big and unwieldy. But the notion is here and I am not the only editor of this article. So we need comments from other editors. I think it would be better if a Zuni speaker footnoted the Davis entry and wrote an new article, if this is possible.Amerindianarts 9 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

In reference to your earlier statement and a recent question immediately above

"Can you imagine a 16th century Francescan priest extending his arms towards the heavens and praying on behalf of the Zuni for support (Sp. apoyar) in times of drought, and perhaps the Spanish verb apoyar being adopted by the Zuni as Apoya(nne) to mean "sky" (Newman), stone cover (or "sky" per Bunzel), or "all-covering Father" (Cushing)."

"I also desire further conversations with a Zuni speaker concerning the word "/a". Pehaps the possible correlation between its use as a word for "stone" as well as the use as as an absolute plural nominative."

Sky is not written, nor does it sound like apoyanne. The p must be replaced by b, so that it is written: aboyanne. In addition, strong accents and pauses are used when words are spoken in Zuni to distinguish what syllabels were combined to make words. This does not hold true for Spanish words which are spoken with fluidity. Therefore, I don’t think the correlation made by Newman is correct with the Spanish word, apoyar, which means: to support. However, the sentence structures and word tenses written and spoken in Zuni are similar to the Spanish language.

Understanding the development of Zuni words is important to make any analysis. Zuni words are developed by combining the first syllable of nouns with the second and subsequent syllables of adjectives.

Stone: (singular) a’le (plural) a’we

Stone or Glass window: (singular) a’sho’wanne (plural) a’sho’wawe

hat or cover: (singular) bo’yanne (plural) bo’yawe

Sky (literal translation: glass or stone cover) (singular) a’bo’yanne (plural) a’bo’yawe

Sky is written as: aboyanne not apoyanne.

Another example:

Metal: (noun: singular) he’le (noun: plural) he’we

Sharp: (adjective) o’da

Pointed: (adjective) gya’tso’da

Nail: (literal translation: pointed metal) (noun: singular)he’gya’tso’danne (noun: plural) he’gya’tso’dawe

Finger nail: (noun: singular) shon’chinne (noun: plural) shon’chiwe

Fork: (literal translation: metal finger nails) (noun: singular) he’shon’chinne (noun: plural) he’shon’chiwe

Does this sound Japanese to you? I didn't think so either... Yaw Davis needed this approach to make her theory hold true. In addition, a dialog between a Japanese and Zuni would be funny to watch and listen to. HAHAHA!!! :) Shiwi 9 July 2005 00:38(GMT-7:00)

My interests are NOT in the Japanese/Zuni correlation. I put that correlation in for informational purposes. My interest is the Zuni World View and how it is reflected in the language (I wrote the paper in 'external links'). I study ontology (theory of being)and intentionality, and in particular I have made a detailed study of Zuni ontology. I have noticed that the plural for stone is the same as the absolutive pluralizing pronominative, (a we) where the 'we' is dropped before a noun. Bunzel translated 'apoyanne' as 'stone cover', with the 'a' translated as 'stone'. Cushing translated 'Apoyan Tatcu' as 'all covering Father', seemingly using 'a' as a universal indicator where the prefix 'a we' (the 'we' dropped) would also rightly indicate a person, or being. In an investigation of a Zuni notion of 'substance' or 'matter', the uses of 'a we' would seem indicate a convergence of the universal and particular which would resolve the lack of a distinction in the language for corpreal and incorporeal matter, or substance. This makes the universal a member of its own class and would explain Cushing's notion of a seventh kiva (non-physical) as a concept. This use of 'a we' is distinct from its use in 'Apila Shiwani' were the 'a' indicates a class of beings in the plural. On the contrary, the 'a' in 'apoyanne' as Cushing uses it seems to indicate a particular, all encompassing being, which exhausts its class (both the plural and singular together). If you can't answer for any reason whatever, I understand, but I've been struggling with these discrepancies for years. Bunzel's notion of stone cover makes the concept a one-in-the-many and many-in-the-one as a very concrete entity, and Cushing's notion is more at the metaphysical level. I have entertained the notion that the many uses center on a notion of substance, and perhaps also the word 'a le' used to mean 'ceremonial object'. An understanding of 'a we' and its possible many uses would go a long way in understanding Zuni.Amerindianarts 9 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Also, Newman did not make the 'apoyar' correlation. That was suggested to me by a proof-reader who spoke SpanishAmerindianarts 9 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

RIGHT ON!!! You know a heck of a lot more than "Dr." Nancy Yaw Davis! I give you more credit then her in the scientific methodology department. Need I not say more! I leave your understanding of 'a le' and 'a we' as something for me to know, and you to find out, well actually I don't encourage you to continue your search too deeply. ...This is the irony in proving something without proof. You will upset many Zunis and the spirits if you constantly interogate. Cushing kept asking and broke many taboos and he died for it, other recent "researchers" kept asking and they died or had serious illnesses without seemingly any cause.

Anyway, the 10,000 minus a handful of Zunis sure as heck disagree with Yaw Davis. And if Cushing and Bunzel were alive, they would laugh at her so called research. Hahahaha!!! Shiwi 9 July 2005 08:55(GMT-7:00)

Yes, I understand. The danger of the deviant utterance. My Native American blood runs thin and I am basically a Westerner immersed in the dichotomies of Western logic. Thus, I have to continue my inquiry to resolve transliteral problems in regards to these terms; elsewhere I presume. Attani if I do, go crazy if I don't. Amerindianarts 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this description of Japanese here in the Zuni article should be changed? -- Eirikr 09:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Japanese has not been conclusively demonstrated to be genetically related to any other language. There is a lot of debate. The biggest problem is the lack of regular sound correspondence. Unrelated languages can be grammatically similar. Korean is probably the most likely candidate for a genetic relation. Take a look at: Shibatani, Masayoshi. (1990). The languages of Japan. Peace - ishwar (SPEAK) 09:46, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Ishwar, I will definitely look that book up. It has been far too long since I've read any serious linguistics. I do remember reading somewhere that close grammatical structures are a better indication of relation than simple vocabularies, as words can be swapped out much more easily than grammars, which has partially prompted my current thinking on Japanese and Korean. I'll give Shibatani a read and see what he has to say. Cheers! --- Eirikr 10:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I have to agree that any evidence for a genetic relation between Japanese and any other language is not conclusive enough to make the change, and like the Zuni language demonstated relations are too remote historically to have much weight. A similarity between grammatical relations does not explain, for example, the similarity of such culturally diverse polysynthetic languages as German and Zuni, where grammatical structure is similar in incorporation. Also, a reference to "similar vocabularies" is much to vague, as it does not consider the distinction (no matter how subtle) between cognates and loanwords (which can be a false cognate). The Davis book tries to link the language through biological similarities as well, a methodology will be supported in the future by technological innovations (and to the dismay of some schools of linguistics). Amerindianarts 20:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

copyright

I removed the copyright thingee. This page is not infringing; rather, another website is infringing by using the contents of this page without acknowledging the GFDL. Long story. Isomorphic 03:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

They don't seem to be infringing. The page says "From Wikipedia" at the top of the page, and has a link to the Wikipedia article at the bottom of the page. RickK 06:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the infringing page: http://language.school-explorer.com/info/Zuni_language. There is no reference to Wikipedia on this page. You would not know that they were infringing unless you did a search for "Zuni language" on Google and saw in the results where a verbatim quote from this article was the site description. This is true for many of Wikipedia's other language articles as well. It is blatant infringement. Amerindianarts 17:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

A non-compliance complaint has been sent. Anyone wanting to see it can email me for a copy. Amerindianarts 19:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Google appears to have removed school-explorer from its indices. Amerindianarts 22:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Proportionality

It strikes me as rather strange that this article on the Zuni language has three paragraphs discussing unsupported and completely discredited attempts to link Zuni to other language families, and two paragraphs about the "Zuni world view", against actual information on the language consisting of ... two charts.

I'd rather work on this myself instead of just griping about it, but I don't have any opportunity right now to go to the library and find one of the 39 references listed here. If someone else can add some information that actually concerns the Zuni language, I think it would improve this article a lot. Jiashudiwanjin 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

right! let's move the worldview part here & rewrite it.

==Zuni world view==

A bibliography of books and articles concerning the Zuni language lists items dealing with syntax and semantics, as does Zuni Curtis D. Cook's article and the work of Stanley Newman. Others, such as Ruth Bunzel's Pueblo Pottery and M. Jane Young's book on Rock Art, are important in the study of pragmatics and the Zuni World View as it is reflected in the Zuni language. The Zuni worldview may properly be considered as a study in orthology. The form and function of design images and pictographic rock art images and their interpretation according to Zuni mythology or cosmology sufficed as a form of communication prior to the appearance of a written language.

Also important are the books on and by Frank Hamilton Cushing. He was the first anthropologist to undertake studies by means of the method of participant observation, and became a member of the Zuni's Priesthood of the Bow during his tenure at the Pueblo from 1879-1884. Of special interest in regard to the Zuni language is his correspondences edited by Jesse Green, and their relevance to the Zuni language as it reflects their worldview.

– ishwar  (speak) 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Aa" vs "A" in "Ashiwi"

Using "Aa" in Ashiwi is incorrect and unsupported in the references listed. If reinserted it needs a citation for a source more definitive and authoritative than those of Bunzel, Cushing, Walker, Newman, and others. "Aa" actually confounds the distinction between the Zuni plural absolutive and the designation for a particle in an artificial way that is not supported in speaking in that it reflects a distinction between the abstract, or universal, and a concrete particular that is not at all evident in the Zuni language.

"Shiwi ma" is transliterated as the "Zuni way" and refers to more than the language itself. Zuni speakers, when referring to the Zuni language, include the verb for "speaking" after "Shiwi ma" 74.142.55.239 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

re the aa- :

The vowel is long as indicated by Newman. Bunzel & Cushing are not accurate in their phonetic transcription while Walker & Newman are. This article is using the orthographic conventions of Tedlock, who writes long vowels with double vowel letters. – ishwar  (speak) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard Orthography

Why is nothing mentioned about the standard Zuni orthography, developed by Curtis Cook?? It uses standard latin letters, as well as Ł ł. Vowels are lengthened with a :, and ' indicates a glottal stop. It is the standard orthography used on the reservation today, and on the internet. A few phrases are available here: http://www.suduva.com/zuni_conversation.htm--Alfredie (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have placed that in, and don't know where to put all this old stuff about all the old orthography's, or if it even belongs?? feel free to incorporate at will--Alfredie (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A writing system based on the Roman alphabet was developed for Zuni by linguist Stanley Newman (Newman 1954). This practical orthography essentially followed Americanist phonetic notation with the substitution of some uncommon letters with other letters or digraphs (two letter combinations). A further revised orthography is used in Dennis Tedlock's transcriptions of oral narratives.

A comparison of the systems is in the table below.

Tedlock	Newman	Americanist	IPA
ʼ	/	ʔ	/ʔ/
ʼʼ	//	ʔʔ	/ʔʔ/
a	a	a	/a/
aa	a:	a·	/aː/
ch	ch	č	/ʧ/
cch	chch	čč	/ʧʧ/
e	e	e	/e/
ee	e:	e·	/eː/
i	i	i	/i/
ii	i:	i·	/iː/
h	j	h	/h/
hh	jj	hh	/hh/
k	k	k	/k/
kk	kk	kk	/kk/
kw	q	kʷ	/kʷ/
kkw	qq	kʷkʷ	/kʷkʷ/
l	l	l	/l/
ll	ll	ll	/ll/
lh	lh	ł	/ɬ/
llh	lhlh	łł	/ɬɬ/
m	m	m	/m/

Tedlock	Newman	Americanist	IPA
mm	mm	mm	/mm/
n	n	n	/n/
nn	nn	nn	/nn/
o	o	o	/o/
oo	o:	o·	/oː/
p	p	p	/p/
pp	pp	pp	/pp/
s	s	s	/s/
ss	ss	ss	/ss/
sh	sh	š	/ʃ/
ssh	shsh	šš	/ʃʃ/
t	t	t	/t/
tt	tt	tt	/tt/
ts	z	c	/ʦ/
tts	zz	cc	/ʦʦ/
u	u	u	/u/
uu	u:	u·	/uː/
w	w	w	/w/
ww	ww	ww	/ww/
y	y	y	/j/
yy	yy	yy	/jj/

In Newman's orthography (used in his dictionary, Newman 1958), the symbols, ch, j, lh, q, sh, z, /, : replaced Americanist č, h, ł, k^w, š, c, ʔ, and · (used in Newman's grammar, Newman 1965).

Tedlock's orthography uses ʼ instead of Newman's / except at the beginning of words where it is not written. Additionally, in Tedlock's system, long vowels are written doubled instead with a length mark : as in Newman's system (e.g. aa instead of a:) and h and kw are used instead of j and q. Finally, Tedlock writes the following long consonants — cch, llh, ssh, tts — with a doubled initial letter instead of Newman's doubling of the digraphs — chch, lhlh, shsh — and kkw and tts are used instead of Newman's qq and zz.

I wonder if anyone has done a control study - i.e. taken a random sample of languages from around the world and looked for correlations. There is no way to know if the supposed correlations between Zuni and Japanese are statistically significant without such a baseline. Anyone looking for an idea for a thesis(:

Laurence white (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

tamil

tamil Himyah silver (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

About that controversial "Japanese connection"

Okay, look. I understand nobody wants to take a wild-sounding theory and say it's actually necessarily correct/give it "more credence than it [in their opinion] deserves"...however, when popular websites (Cracked, in this case -hey, don't judge, there's a reason I went looking for more information!) are covering a theory? That an entire (apparently relatively well-known) book was written on, that references the language's origins? And you remove all reference to the theory?

To the extent in fact that there isn't even a 'single sentence mentioning "so and so came up with this theory based on cognates and the basic grammar and has other evidence that she believed demonstrated that there had been contact with this culture and another one" EVEN IF it is presented as "however, this view is highly controversial and has been criticized by X, Y and Z scholars"...?

...sorry, but it smacks of a weird and rather frustrating form of censorship.

No, wait, hear me out here okay? I know that's a strong word, but; when you're looking at a theory that has been referenced in popular culture just enough that it's literally driving people to this page (and let me tell you, there is a LONG discussion dating back to 2005 up higher on this talk page, so it's clearly been driving users to this page for over ten years) it doesn't matter that you don't like it or think it's crazy and lacks good support. It should be mentioned and addressed.

Heck, ESPECIALLY if it's being cited by layman but is considered unrealistic by linguists and others who have reason to discredit it! If anything, that just makes it more important to address it :\ Here I was hoping to find something on it, see if there had been scholarly rebuttals or someone who discussed her work one way or the other that I could use WP as a summary of/jumping off point to find, and instead? There's literally nothing at all about it and I'm left wondering why, and also left with this page being pretty much useless for the main reason I looked it up today.

Since others discussed this (by which I mean, argued) up above a few years ago, I can't imagine I'm the only person looking this up entirely because of Nancy Yaw Davis' theory being mentioned somewhere popular (and supported as "hey, surprisingly plausible!" in that place, no less).

I get that there is apparently a strong argument to be made that she was wrong, BUT to not even 'bring it up in the actual article while noting that people have poked holes in her theory? Is frustrating. Because apparently, people do keep reading that book and since it's been referenced on a popular website as a "hey this is crazy but PROBABLY TOTALLY TRUE AND REWRITING HISTORYYYYY" thing you KNOW people are going to be looking this up for the same reason I am, and probably in a lot of cases with a lot less cynicism. Not mentioning it at all is providing a lack of coverage on a key component of the article's subject, even if it's just to debunk it in one sentence. It's also probably going to lead to someone naively trying to add it in again without questioning it, and then we'll probably end up with either an inaccurate or incomplete statement about its plausibility/acceptance, or an outright edit war and I'm sure no one wants that.

I don't have access to/know of any discussion on her work outside of the Cracked listicle + one source of who knows what reliability (I do not have nor can I afford access to academic journals, assuming any of actual repute has bothered to cover it), so I'm not the person do it, AND I don't remember/know how to ping someone like the person above who was arguing it with someone else (and that's assuming they're still bothering to edit Wikipedia 10+ years later), so I'm not sure how to bring in someone with the relevant experience, especially as WP of course has that really strict rule about 'original research' (meaning, any debunkings referenced need to be third-party debunkings, is my understanding?). But if someone who has the relevant knowledge of this book and any sources discussing it (including debunkings), sees this, PLEASE do everyone a favor and contribute? :\

TLDR: It's a hole in the article's coverage that I really feel should be addressed if only briefly, given Davis' book and recent popular references to it, are the reason a number of people visited this page in the first place. The only "references" cited elsewhere about her book that I have found so far seem to be supportive, from the early 1990s, but I have no idea how reliable THOSE are either (I have never heard of "Science Frontiers", but apparently it's a journal of some sort. This does not make it reputable of course, there are plenty of credulous folks out there and Native American languages are misunderstood by credulous white folk notoriously often, but I have no way of judging that off the bat, you know?). I don't think I have the knowledge of relevant sources to address it one way or the other, but it needs a nice, balanced mention (including criticism, which I don't know how to look for in a way that could be cited per Wiki rules bit which I'm sure exists somewhere, given the above discussions). The only reference I have found so far is Science Frontiers Online (No. 87: May-Jun 1993 in specific), which mentions the biological items and some vague reference to social "organization", "oral history" etc, that Davis cited in support of her theory for contact between the Zuni and 12th Century-ish Japanese, but that's about it, no discussion of the alleged similarities between Japanese and Zuni that Davis claims, and I have, again, no idea how "reliable" a source per Wiki's guidelines that would be. People more familiar with linguistics are probably better tapped to find a balanced way to cover this (apparently wacky, but popularly-referenced) theory, but the recent popularity/interest in it means it should arguably be addressed. 97.104.76.15 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason it isn't referenced is because it's not referenced at all in the scholarly literature. If Kim Kardashian wrote a popular book stating that the moon was made of cheese, how many astronomers do you think would waste their time writing scientific articles debunking such a book? Probably none. That's about the value of Nancy Yaw Davis' book as a serious scholarly work in the field of linguistics. Until actual scholarly research and reliable sources exist that reference her theories, there is nothing to cite and therefore nothing to write. The scientific consensus among **all** experts is that Zuni is either 1) a language isolate or 2) distantly related to some other Native American language. Period. --70.184.83.221 (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Then say in the article why it is probably wrong, don't just completely ignore a well known posit.73.162.186.191 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If we went by that logic all the time, then we wouldn't have any articles on Pseudoarchaeology or even more outlandish claims like the Bosnian pyramid claims. The problem with your analogy is if those books were to really happen, then they would likely be forgotten about in months maybe, but people still talk about the Zuni-Japanese language theory over a decade later. Heck, like the OP in this thread even mentioned, I checked this page just to see what the coverage on the theory was and was solely disappointed when I see it wasn't even mentioned.71.71.54.95 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that Davis is saying that a shipwrecked Japanese boat led to some Japanese meeting Zuni folks. So then, she speculates there may be some loanwords from Japanese into Zuni based on their similarity to Japanese words. She never said that the two languages are related. A genealogical relation between them is coming from misreporting by the internet or the news. But, as I understand it, even her loanword proposal is not accepted. And, there's no evidence that a Japanese folks ever encountered Zuni folks historically. A problem with adding this to the article is that we need to find a specialist review of her book or some other publication that discusses the book. Simply mentioning her idea without surrounding commentary may appear to give it an implied hint of plausibility, which is not what should be given to it. It's best to wait for an expert to address it publicly. (However, most folks like to spend their time doing serious work...) – ishwar  (speak) 13:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree with this. Credible theory about loan words and the current page mentions this tribe took loan words from tribes as far away as British Columbia. Feels like the references were removed in 2014 for no reason. Would be best to change it to a "Here is the theory but it is not accepted by the majority of experts." No reason not to have it other than censorship by the linguistic community. Ptinkle99 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is shit

Hardly anything here. Learned almost nothing reading it. Wikipedia is real trash. Where can someone go to actually learn something about Zuni? 2600:1011:B00C:724:74BE:4FC6:4201:E432 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)