 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roohą / rōhą ′a lot′ - actually pronounced roohąą / rōhą̄
taanį / tānį ′three′ - actually pronounced taanįį / tānı̨̄
caasga - white deer; sheep - actually pronounced caasgaa / cāsgā
With much gratitude to early linguists, it seems they might have had a bit of trouble hearing that Hoocąk can and often does have two long (or stressed) syllables in a word.
To add extra oomph, we can see that length isn't a stable indicator of meaning, given that length/stress easily shifts without sacrificing meaning:
ciožu (pronounced cióóžùù), "inside the house"
Underlying structure: cíí hožùù
The length (better: stress) of cii- moves right (cíí hožùù --> cióóžùù) but the remaining ci- in cioožùù still means "house," and the (h)oo, though now long (better: stressed) hasn't become a fish ;)
One guess is that early linguists over-extrapolated the very common morph-Dorph pattern (regular morpheme + Dorsey morpheme), e.g. caa.xete (big deer; buck) which is pronounced cáá.xéte, with the first /e/ of the Dorsey morpheme, xete, truly being short-and-stressed. When looking at non-Dorsey-containing compounds (are they really compounds?) such as caasgaa (white deer; sheep), the early linguists presumed this should be caasgá. In reality there is absolutely no difference in either /a/. It would be more helpfully written caasgaa, cásgá or cāsgā or simply casga / ca sga.
I would respectfully submit that Hoocąk is (phonologically) very much like its linguistic relatives when it comes to length/stress (listen to a Lakȟóta stressed /a/ next to a Hoocąk long /a/, for example.)
It doesn't mean there isn't a place for length - say in cases where a morpheme with permanent length (-nąąk, they are) needs to be distinguished from one with permanent shortness (-nąk, s/he is), and in cases of elision (nąącawa --> nąącaa, "ear"). It's worth considering that the -nąąk is very likely an elision itself of some older form.
The elephant in the room: PITCH! Someday we'll need to discuss that.
Just my žuurašu(u)c nųųpra :) All Hoocąk spelling methods from BaBeBiBo all the way up to today's system have been very elegant compared to, for example, English :)
What a beautiful language! So deserving of its name: Sacred Language - Original Language.
 | On 5 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ho-Chunk languagetoHo-Chunk language. The result of the discussion was moved. |
The Winnebago/Ho-Chunk are not a tribe, though they may have once been a tribal people. Their governments are "Tribes", but that is something different. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I believe then the correct terminology for them would be a "Nation" Linglenglang (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments in favor of the are not simply an appeal to "political correctness." Ho-Chunk is the common and contemporary name for the language in all contemporary sources, including other Wikipedia articles. Very little linguistic work on the language was published prior to the 1980's (perhaps 5-10 articles total) and the article explains that the language was at one time known by another name. Proposed evidence with N-grams is complicated because there is an RV company known as Winnebago (founded in 1958 by non-Ho-Chunks) which may skew results for how the language and the people have been referred to. N-gram can not compare references to "Winnebago language" to "Ho-Chunk language." Linglenglang (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides have made reasonable arguments, and votes are roughly split. SSTflyer 05:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winnebago language → Ho-Chunk language – This article should be moved from “Winnebago” to “Ho-Chunk.” The motivation behind this move is that Winnebago is an outdated and pejorative term. I have three main reasons to support this claim. First, the name Winnebago was assigned to Ho-Chunk people by outsiders around the time of European contact. The label Winnebago was officially decried in 1993 as part of the Ho-Chunk Nation’s constitutional reform of the mid-nineties, and the tribe has exclusively used Ho-Chunk in all official capacities since then. The tribe’s website provides a background on the the term. Second, renaming the Winnebago language page would make it more consistent with Wikipedia’s main entry on the Ho-Chunk people which itself acknowledges the negative connotations of “Winnebago” in its Etymology section. Finally, all current academic papers on the Ho-Chunk language (tribally sponsored or not) refer to it as Ho-Chunk (or a spelling variation of that term), while those published around the 1980's and earlier use Winnebago. There are also a few papers which use Ho-Chunk as the primary term with Winnebago in parenthesis, to show that the more prominent modern term is referring to the same language as the former term did. One example of a recent publication can be found here: Hocak Teaching Materials, Volume 1. Several other graduate thesis/dissertations use this updated term as well, including Narrative particles in Hocak myths, People of the Sacred Language: Revival of the Hocak language, and The Syntax of Adjectives in Hocak. Linglenglang (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Winnebago language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it say that "Ho-Chunk has aspirated /p/ and /k/ phonemes but no aspirated /t/." and yet the phonemic inventory shows ejectives not aspirates? Is this a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.65.167 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The phonemic inventory is incorrect. The consonants listed as "voiceless" should be aspirated, and the "voiced" consonants should be plain. This was probably from an earlier source that labelled it as a voiced/voiceless distinction -- maybe based on a perception coming from the misanalyzed distinction in English? --2600:6C44:F7F:C80D:3186:693D:F962:2EAB (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 14:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Winnebago language → Ho-Chunk language – The people that speak this language article is named Ho-Chunk and the mythology is under Ho-Chunk mythology. This article should match the naming conventions already used on Wikipedia for the sake of consistency.
New dictionaries created by the Ho-Chunk Nation use Ho-Chunk over Winnebago in reference to their language. The dictionary, at dictionary.hochunk.org, contains more than 11,000 entries, each accompanied by audio pronunciation of the word or phrase and is the first online version of their dictionary, along with the app version. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification as well. oncamera (talk page) 09:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
