Talk:Inuvialuktun

Merge

A merge tag has been put on here and Inuinnaqtun but no reason given as to why they should. I don't think they should be merged. As the Inuvialuktun article points out it is a political designation for three different dialects, none of which are Inuinnaqtun. Inuvialuktun is used as a term only in the Northwest Territories and covers, Siglitun, Uummarmiutun and Kangiryuarmiutun. Inuinnaqtun is an official language of both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories and is similar to Kangiryuarmiutun but is not part of the Inuvialuktun. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dialects

The North Baffin, Aivilingmiutut, and Kivallirmiutut dialects are not Inuvialuk (Western Canadian Inuit) language; these are Inuktitut (Eastern Canadian Inuit) dialects. --Kmoksy (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The real Inuvialuktun dialects:

• Siglitun, Siglit, Inuvialuktun proper. Tribes: Qikiqtaruqmiut, Kupugmiut, Kittegaryumiut, Nuvuraqmiut, Avvagmiut, Nuunatahmiut
• ᐃᓄᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓐ Inuinnaqtun, Inuinnaq, Copper Inuktitut
  • Kangiryuarmiutun subdialect. Tribes: Kanghiryuatjagmiut, Kanghirjuarmiut, (?) Haneragmiut, (?) Puivlirmiut, (?) Nagyuktomiut
  • Cambridge subdialect. Tribes: Ekaluktomiut, Kiglinirmiut
  • Coppermine subdialect, Kugluktuk dialect. Tribes: Akkuliakattangmiut, Noahognirmiut, Kogluktomiut, Wallirmiut, Asiagmiut, Pingangnaktomiut
  • Bathurst subdialect. Tribes: Nennitagmiut, Kilusiktomiut
• Natsilingmiutut, Natsilik dialect
  • Natsilik subdialect, Natsilik proper. Tribes: Arvertormiut, Netsilingmiut, Kuungmiut
  • Arviligjuaq subdialect. Tribes: Arviligjuarmiut, Sinimiut
  • Utkuhiksalik subdialect, Utkuhikhalik, Gjoa Haven dialect. Tribes: (?) Ahagmiut, (?) Hanningařuqmiut, (?) Ilivilermiut, Ugyulingmiut, Qeqertarmiut, Utkuhiksalingmiut (Utkuhiksalik proper)

--Kmoksy (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

ISO codes

I had to use the disputed template because the inline {{Failed verification}} breaks the links.

If you follow the two links given , iku and ikt neither one of them mention Inuvialuktun and both say that the code is for Inuinnaqtun. If you go back to this version of the article and follow reference #1 it also says Inuinnaqtun and not Inuvialuktun. That last link also says that there are 410 Inuinnaqtun speakers and looking at the actual 2011 Canada census confirms that the number of speakers of Inuinnaqtunis 410. All of this shows that the ISO code used here is incorrect. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It also says that dialects are Caribou Eskimo (Keewatin), Copper Inuktitut (“Copper Eskimo” (pej.), Copper Inuit), Netsilik, Siglit (Siglitun). If Netsilik and Siglit are not part of this ISO code, which code does cover them? Or are they uncoded?

Ethnologue defines the scope of ISO, but they're often inconsistent. Names are often ambiguous, so we can't simply go by the name. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case just ignore and ensure that the Ethnologue reference is not used as it's not a reliable source. Just going by the two SIL links the code does not cover Inuvialuktun and it can't be found on the SIL site www.google.com/cse?cx=012587068058456009639%3Acaoqezvtgho&ie=UTF-8&q=Siglit&sa=Search+SIL+International+website&siteurl=www-01.sil.org%2Fiso639-3%2Fdocumentation.asp%3Fid%3Dikt&ref=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTalk%3AInuvialuk_language&ss=1348j1461904j3#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Inuvialuktun (the link is blacklisted for some reason). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. It would seem it does cover it. And the only thing we have to explain what the ISO code refers to is Ethnologue, so unless you have something better I'm afraid we're stuck with it. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Where does SIL cover Inuvialuktun? I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything. And neither does Ethnologue. This means that the source be it SIL or Ethnologue can't be used in this article as they don't confirm the claim but could be used at Inuinnaqtun. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree with CambridgeBayWeather, this language doesnt appear to be covered in the sources, and therefore they should not be used. -- Nbound (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't always use the same name as Ethnologue, but Ethnologue defines ISO [ikt] to cover the dialects "Caribou Eskimo (Keewatin), Copper Inuktitut (“Copper Eskimo” (pej.), Copper Inuit), Netsilik, Siglit (Siglitun)". That's what this article covers. Their map covers what in our map is Siglitun, Inuinnaqtun, Natsilingmiutut, Aivilimmiutut, Kivallirmiutut, and part of Qikiqtaaluk uannangani; apart from the defining isogloss being further east on Baffin Island (the boundaries don't correspond exactly anywhere), that is also what this article covers. Thus, according to Ethnologue 17, which is the only reference we have to define the scope of ISO codes, code [ikt] corresponds to what we call "Inuvialuk". Perhaps Ethnologue chose the name of the Inuinnaqtun dalect as the cover term for the entire language (what they used to call "Western Canadian Inuktitut"), something I've seen in hundreds of other Ethnologue articles, or perhaps the source we used for our map used the name of wider the language for the central, unnamed dialect. Either way, languages aren't defined by the names we give them. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

However by assuming that Ethnologue is using this particular code to cover Inuvialuktun is original research. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's just common sense, like adding populations from different countries. You're effectively arguing that we can't assign ISO codes to any language at all, or that if we're going to use ISO codes, we must move all WP articles to correspond to their ISO names. If that's your argument, then I think you'll need to take it up with the language wiki-project.

Ethnologue divides up the entire Inuit-speaking area into lects with ISO codes. If [ikt] applies to just one part of Inuvialuk, then the other parts must have different ISO codes, but those don't exist. Unless you have a source that Ethnologue is wrong, that the ISO code does not mean what Ethnologue says it means, then we follow Ethnologue as our only RS on this matter. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Another source: Linguist List assigns the following codes as subvarieties of [ikt]: Coppermine/Qurluqtuq (ikt-cpm), Siglit (ikt-sig), Caribou/Kivalliq (ikt-car), Holman Island / Ulukhaqtuuq (ikt-hol), Netsilik/Arviligjuaq (ikt-net), Gjoa Haven / Uqsuqtuuq (ikt-gjo), Spence Bay / Talurjuaq (ikt-spe), Copper/Kangiryuarmiut/Iqaluktuuttiaq (ikt-cop).

In both sources, [ikt] is defined as including both Siglit and Netsilik, which are the two varieties you are trying to exclude. Without any source to back it up, it is your proposal that is OR. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Kaba So language is a similar situation. Ethnologue reports the name is pejorative, and so uses "Kulfa". Yet Kulfa is just one dialect of Kaba So; technically you might maintain that "Kulfa" excludes the other two dialects/ethnicities, Kurumi and Bara, yet all three are listed at Ethnologue, both under dialects and under speaker statistics. There are lots of cases like this, where the ISO name of a language is actually that of one dialect of that language. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Inuvialuk people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why words for snow?

The language appears to have no more words for snow than English does. Why does this article have words for snow when the English language article doesn't? Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)