Talk:Ojibwe grammar

Zeroeth Person

Is "zeroeth" the common way to spell that in Ojibwe studies? Because I have always only seen "zeroth". Dictionary.com recognizes "zeroth" but not "zeroeth", and the former gets 1,700,000 Google hits compared to the latter's 36,200. I didn't want to change it, though, in case "zeroeth" was the more common spelling when referring to Ojibwe persons. 206.176.113.70 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always hear and used "zeroeth" and in the same construct as "zeroes" and "zeroed" but you're absolutely right about the frequency of "zeroth" being much higher than "zeroeth". Maybe this is a variation like color/colour, syrup/sirop, jail/gaol, airplane/aeroplane, sulfur/sulphur, today/to-day, cooperation/coöperation, inflection/inflexion and aluminum/aluminium? I will go ahead and change the spelling. CJLippert 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a strange one. Searching altavista for zeroeth zeroth returns a (trivial) dictionary.com link, which helpfully states "No results found for Zeroeth". A contributor to LEO claims that "zeroeth" is a British version of zeroth. But the OED doesn't even list zeroeth. It does allow for "zero'th", however.

While I tend to think insertion of an e fits the sound, the OED has the pronounciation the same as for growth and both. See also Talk:Zeroth#Pronunciation?.

—DIV (Melbourne, 128.250.80.15 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Zeroth Person, Null Person, and Person Hierarchy

None of the information in the "Person" section is sourced.

The article needs to have some verifiable, reliable, third-party secondary sources (and maybe also some primary sources) to show that any group of professional linguists use the term "0th person" or "zeroth person" or "zeroeth person" or "zero'th person", however it is spelled.

It would also be helpful to have a reference showing that "0th person" is used in discussing any language other than Ojibwe.

The "person hierarchy" in the "Transitive" section also needs such verifiable sourcing.

It seems doubtful that "Null Person" would precede "Third Person Proximative" in such a hierarchy.

If this is true, at least two primary-or-secondary sources, compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies about reliable, verifiable, third-party sources, should support this analysis of Ojibwe's person-hierarchy.

And, just like "0th person", the article needs reliable sourcing for Ojibwe's "Null Person"; and this would be more credible if some group of professional linguists also used the term "Null Person" when speaking of some other languages as well.

--Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't cite a personal communication in the article; but I wrote my former intro-to-linguistics professor, who is a specialist in Algonquian languages, and she says Rand Valentine is a reliable source, and the habit of denoting inanimate participants as "0th person" is common when discussing Algonquian languages. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not just Dr. Rand Valentine that uses the 0 and X, but so does Dr. John Nichols (see Nookomis Gaa-inaajimotawid by Maude Kegg and An Ojibwe Text Anthology, both edited by Dr. John D. Nichols). CJLippert (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For Ojibwe, this is what Dr. John D. Nichols says in the grammar notes in Kegg, Maude (1990, first 1983). Nookomis Gaa-inaajimotawid: What My Grandmother Told Me. Oshkaabewis Native Journal (Bemidji, MN:Indian Studies Publications), pp.143-144:

0 inanimate singular // 0p inanimate plural // 0(p) inanimate singular or plural // 0’ inanimate obviative singular // 0’p inanimate obviative plural // 0’(p) inanimate obviative singular or plural // 1 first person singular // 1p first person plural exclusive (excluding the second person) // 2 second person singular // 21 first person plural inclusive (including the second person) // 2p second person singular // 3 animate third person singular // 3p animate third person plural // 3’ animate obviative || X indefinite actor.

Nichols, however, does not cite 3’p but includes 0(p) and 0’(p). Looking at the Nichols, John D. (ed.)(1998) An Ojibwe Text Anthology The Centre for Research and Teaching of Canadian Native Languages (London, ON: University of Western Ontario), pp. 291-292, he omits 3’p, 0(p) and 0’(p), but calls the others these:

X unspecified subject // 1 first person singular // 1p first person exclusive plural // 2 second person singular // 21 first person inclusive plural // 2p second person singular // 3 animate third person singular // 3p animate third person plural // 0 inanimate singular || 0p inanimate plural // 0’ inanimate obviative singular // 0’p inanimate obviative plural

He cites not only Nookomis Gaa-inaajimotawid but also Bloomfield, Leonard (1958) Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical Sketch, Texts and Word List (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press). Dr. Rand Valentine goes into much details in his Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), including the 2 > 1 > X > 3 > 3’ > 0 topicality hierarchy. CJLippert (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I cannot use my experience as a citation, the topicality hierarchy, when fully expanded becomes this:

21 > 2 > 2p > 1 > 1p > X > 3 > 3p > 3’ > 3’p > 3’’ > 0 > 0p > 0’ > 0’p

Meanwhile, I will look around to see if I can find some reference that speaks to this very exact nature, as Valentine speak of only 1) person, 2) gender, and 3) obviation, but my personal experience is 1a) gender, 1b) person, 2) number, and 3) obviation... as these are the important factors in choosing the correct verb forms, which we then also consider transitivity. Not in Ojibwe, but in the Eastern Algonquian language (such as the Maliseet language), the issue of transitivity also becomes another factor as they have a double-object in their VT patterns in addition to the regular VTI and VTA forms that can be singular or plural, and have VII and VAI like all other Algonquian languages, though not certain if they have VAI+O like Ojibwe does. CJLippert (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have received the following personal email from Professor Valentine:

Hi Eldin. I don't have time to read the Wikipedia article now. I don't recall ever writing anything in Wikipedia related to Ojibwe, oh, maybe a sentence or two, but nothing substantial. I think your puzzles are making reference to a common convention in Ojibwe/Algonquian studies, to code person/gender in this way 3 third person animate 0 third person inanimate But I don't know anyone who calls 0 "zeroth" person, or 0th person. It's just a code used in paradigm lists for reasons of economy, though you could certainly say that animate generally outranks inanimate (but I'm not sure what zero would mean in such a scheme, given what 1, 2, 3 mean). There are also "unspecified actor forms" which are animate intransitive and transitive inanimate forms that don't have explicit subjects. It's rather like German hier wird getanzt 'there is dancing here.' Such forms are often called impersonal passives. It's common in Ojibwe paradigm coding to call these X forms, and to call the implied actor/agent of a passive X as well. I think that's what's causing the other odd usage... so, for example, s/he is seen is coded as X>3s, I am seen as X>1s, etc. The direct suffix in transitive verbs is -aa; the inverse is -ig. In the passive, you get -aa, so if you think of passive as X > 3, e.g., waabamaa, 's/he is seen,' then you could argue that X is higher on the person hierarchy than 3, creating an order 2 1 X 3 (3') 0 (0'). (3' is animate obviative; 0' inanimate obviative). cheers, rand

So it looks like using 0s, 0p, 0's, 0'p for inanimate participants, singular and plural, proximative and obviative, is common practice when describing Algonquian languages (but possibly not other American languages?). Also, it looks like using X to denote an indefinite or unspecified or implicit agent, is common practice when describing Ojibwe paradigms (but possibly not other Algonquian paradigms?), at least those that are intransitive with an animate subject or transitive with an inanimate object -- at least, if I understand Dr. Valentine's remarks properly. He gives good reasons to believe the X fits in the "person hierarchy" as it is shown in the article, but doesn't state whether that's the common consensus among Americanists, or Algonquian specialists, or even Ojibwe specialists.

This encourages me to believe there exist at least a couple of published hardcopy secondary sources at least a year old that support what Prof. Valentine is saying. I also got responses from Laura Welcher and from Anna Siewierska. None of them recognized the terms "0th person" or "zeroth person" (however it might be spelled) as being used in linguistics. If it has any currency, it's in narrative, literature, game-design, etc.; "0th-person perspective" or "0th-person point-of-view" instead of, say, 1st-person or 3rd-person.

--Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed all the improvements you made to the Ojibwe grammar article's Person, Transitives, Verbs, and References sections. In particular, for example, you cited Valentine, Randy (2001). Nishnaabemwin reference grammar (in English with examples in Ojibwa). Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802048706. OCLC 46625840.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link), which I just ordered yesterday (Friday Oct 30) and probably won't get until Tuesday (Nov 3). You also cited many other books I haven't even asked for, much less seen nor touched. That being the case; Do you think it's still necessary to have the "refimprove" and "citecheck" templates in Transitives? In particular I think the "citecheck" can be removed. The material using the terms "0th person" or "zeroth person", and the term "null person", you have now edited out; that was the material the citation didn't support, and now we know that the cited reference is reliable. Don't we also know that the material still in the article which is supported by those sources, is indeed in line with the sources? That being so, "citecheck" doesn't need to be there anymore. Perhaps the "refimprove" template still needs to be there; but I've removed both the "citecheck" and the "refimprove", anticipating that you would agree. If you don't, go ahead and put them backe in; I won't argue. And I noticed you added a "citation needed" template to the "3’p — ... or animate fourth person proximate plural" entry in the "Animate gender (plural)" column of the table in Person; I suppose you know what you're doing there, so I will not do anything about it until you explain and/or ask me to.--Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a problem finding a source that uses the term "animate fourth person proximate plural", though logically, if 3’ = 4, then 3’p = 4p. And yes, "refimprove" should be in there, but at the head of the article as it really is the whole article that needs "refimprove" and not just certain sections. I will only be doing minor edits for the next two week because I will be on business travel. CJLippert (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added in the "Nofootnotes" template at the head instead of the "refimprove". CJLippert (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Works of J. Randolph Valentine

Here are some possible references for some facts about Ojibwe grammar.

American Indian Studies 301 Syllabus (Fall 2004)

SIL Referenced Books by J. Randolph Valentine

Anthropological Linguistics Article by J. Randolph Valentine

Oji-Cree_language

Books by J. Randolph Valentine

--Eldin raigmore (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

--Eldin raigmore (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ojibwe grammar. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051230141427/http://www.sicc.sk.ca:80/heritage/sils/ourlanguages/saulteaux/saulteaux.html to http://www.sicc.sk.ca/heritage/sils/ourlanguages/saulteaux/saulteaux.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)