Talk:Zuni language

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)

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

Pointed: (adjective) gya’tso’da

Sharp: (adjective) o’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)

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)