Talk:Dzubukuá language

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Languages Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Tingui-Botó language" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tingui-Botó language has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 23 § Tingui-Botó language until a consensus is reached. Yacàwotçã (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glide sounds

@Yacàwotçã there are glide sounds in Queiroz (2005:45). And yes they are phonemic. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Queiroz 2005. Not in Queiroz 2012. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed phonology

@Fdom5997, you shouldn't remove the "disputed" tag when the very same author who once claimed that /w/ and /j/ exist has later changed his mind in his PhD thesis. Whether you decide to leave it as it is or to add notes about it, you can't simply leave knowingly (and now you know) disputed information in the article as if it were undisputed fact. Please use the talk page before engaging in a edit war.

By the way, do you speak Portuguese or are you able simply to read the tables of the sources you cite? Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t speak it, but if that’s the case, maybe we should put the glides in parentheses then. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll do it a second. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chart arrangements

@Yacàwotçã would you please lay off the arrangements of the charts? They are not correct and why should they matter so much to you? Fdom5997 (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fdom5997, please cite the part of the Manual of Style where this is stated, or is it just your personal opinion? I am following the source (which you admittedly are unable to make use of because you do not speak the language in which it was written). Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The charts do not have to match the same exact format as the author puts it. What matters is that all the info is published on the page. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it's only your opinion. Thanks for clarifying. Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 October 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove (æ) from the table. Both source are clear when they do not record it as a phoneme: see [1] [2]. This is just a petty misinterpretation of (allo)phones. Please see phoneme and phone (linguistics) if needed. There are over 20 vocalic phones on Dzubukuá, yet we don't list them all on the table because they don't establish minimal pairs. For instance, while Wiktionary:time is pronounced [tʰaɪ̯m], the phonological transcription is actually /taɪm/ since [tʰ] is just a realization of /t/ – as such, there's no tʰ on the English phonology article table. Regards, Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC) Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the caption "sounds", which is quite vague, be changed to "phonemes" in order to make this clearer. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1229b, noting this has been changed by Fdom. This was the version that I added. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind then. If one wishes to add allophones, then a separate table should be added instead of interfering with the phonemic table. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of parentheses around the letter (æ) in the table is rather ambiguous, as that usage often implies phonemes of a language that are only found in loan words, rather than allophonic realizations. I agree that it does not belong there, and that the note below mentioning this ("/œ/ may have an allophone of [æ]...") is more than enough. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed Kariri from the Macro-Jê navbox and articles, following Nikulin (2020).^[1] This remains to be done for this article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC) 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kepler-1229b I'd say this requires some further discussion. Is it the current academic consensus? Which page of the cited work was it based on? I think the "?" alone is enough by now. Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell (2024) and Glottolog reject a link between Kariri and Macro-Jê, the latter saying the evidence is insufficient. I am unaware of any other sufficiently recent source which says otherwise.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps it can be better addressed on Kariri languages and Macro-Jê languages as a somewhat controversial classification. I'm going to revert myself. By the way, as done with Kipeá I'd say we could add this image to the infobox (it's the only Dzubukuá book ever published). There's a nice source about one copy of it, sold for R$200,000 [3]. Yacàwotçã (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection has expired. But please don't make any edits until there's consensus here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nikulin, Andrey (2020). Proto-Macro-Jê: um estudo reconstrutivo (PDF) (Ph.D. dissertation). Brasília: Universidade de Brasília.

"Sounds"

@Fdom5997, talk pages exists for a reason. You haven't use it once since it was protected. Pinging @Oklopfer. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kepler-1229b and Pppery: Just noting that there's a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU when Fdom refuses to use the talk page. He simply doesn't use it. The topic above was open for *over a week*, and this guy said nothing there. Now he pops out of nowhere and tries to force what he believes is the best version of the article at all costs. The guy doesn't even speak the language the sources are written in, for God's sake! Are we really going to let this abuse happen over and over again? @Anachronist: Again, he refuses to properly use the talk page. Look, he had MORE THAN A WEEK, and now he's going to try at all costs to go "b-but what's the p-problem with m-my version?", without recognizing that the issue lies in this tiresome, disgusting, and disruptive modus operandi he simply refuses to drop. This WP:STONEWALLING is out of control. Sorry, but I had no choice but to restore my edit, because there's no sign that this person intends to discuss like a competent editor. The stable version is the current one; if he wants, he can show up here (finally). Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, Oklopfer, and Anachronist: this is akin to vandalism: "Shut up. You will leave this and you will accept it or else. Period!" Come on, something has to be done. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can shut up, and accept the fact the the chart-format I am submitting, is the correct format. Case closed! Fdom5997 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the idea of "being more than happy to accept cited info" I've been hearing about? How can one be this blatantly dishonest about one's claims between replies in literally a single thread? Mazamadao (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you strike me as a purely borderline-obsessive sociopath. You do need to seek help. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classic good-faith, non-ad-hominem argumentation here. I thought you were the one that "tends to be obsessive" as you claim in the reply down below? Mazamadao (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Just for the record, in my previous edits I had to modify the table because, after analyzing the sources, I noticed a row was missing (Queiroz separates the glides from the laterals, as one should). My fault when I converted them to wikitable a week ago, and I only noticed it just now. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention that ridiculous wording "Vowel sound", "Consonantal sound" (noticed by Kepler) showing the guy has absolutely no idea what he's doing. These are phonemes. He refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK. For God's sake, stop this guy from editing this article indefinitely, I'm begging you. The thread at the Administrators' noticeboard went nowhere (even though at least FOUR different editors support some action against him @Eievie, Mazamadao, and Oklopfer:) because few people care about this topic. Are we really going to let him turn the articles into a free-for-all? Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yacàwotçã Ok, maybe I tend to also be obsessive in reverting and charts and all of that, but in most of my edits, I provide a lot of info regarding the phonology of languages on pages all across the site, and I am more than happy to see other users add to my sections with more cited info. I am also incredibly meticulous when it comes to vandals, or any other user who makes changes with zero cited info. The idea that I should be “blocked indefinitely” is pretty harsh considering that the only edits I have had issue with you on, mainly have to do with the cosmetic appearance of charts. And you’re out here slandering and snitching on me and defaming who I truly am deep inside. Have you even looked at my front user page? Literally all of those tags are things I sincerely believe! I know this is not the first time that I have had issues with another user (far from it), but my intention is nothing ill at all. I just care about the quality of the info being provided for the better of the site, and for all users and literally everyone else who views the articles to interpret the best info possible. I do apologize for all I have done with you, but at the same token, let’s still try to be open to new ideas and have a discussion, before things could easily escalate into an edit-war from now on. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "maybe I tend to also be obsessive" Do not minimize your abusive behavior and tendency of taking ownership of things that don't belong to you and claiming authority you don't have. "Vowel sound"? Seriously? Also, remember what you insisted on during our encounter? "May be heard of as"? What self-respected arbiter of linguistic truth would use this kind of terminology? You need to reexamine how you're spending your time, actively pretending to be knowledgeable, instead of taking adequate time to actually learn.

  "I am more than happy to see other users add to my sections with more cited info" This is categorically false. You haven't shown any sign that you're welcoming anybody. What you've insisted on is to have the last say on what you think is right, while completely disregarding what others have to say about it, which in my personal experience, is deliberately hostile. Your attitude has always been childish petulance of the "if I don't like it, you can beat it, and if you keep arguing against me, I'll report you" kind. This has nothing to do with facts, much less "cited info"; it's only about winning arguments while covering your ears screaming "I can't hear you". As I was trying to get across in vain during our last argument: do not tell obvious lies.

  "you’re out here slandering and snitching on me and defaming who I truly am deep inside" Nobody knows who you are "deep inside", and nobody cares. Notice the irony of accusing others of "slandering" you, while all they're doing is pointing out your abuse. You can appear as the most wholesome, sincere guy in real life, and it still does not excuse your behavior here. Mazamadao (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just care about the quality of the info being provided for the better of the site, and for all users and literally everyone else who views the articles to interpret the best info possible.

  I do not doubt that your edits on this topic at a broader scale are in good faith; that being said, your interactions with people who are doing the same do not appear to be. This situation clearly escalated way out of hand, and really had no reason to.

  I do apologize for all I have done with you, but at the same token, let’s still try to be open to new ideas and have a discussion, before things could easily escalate into an edit-war from now on.

  My hope when your ban is lifted is that you will actually follow your own promise here, as I and other users have pointed out, you are often the one who has an aversion to using talk pages to resolve disputes and find WP:CONSENSUS. If you are asking others to be open to new ideas and have a discussion, you should really do the same yourself. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: He is clearly trying to create a straw man, as if I were forcing a personal layout ("just to suit your personal preferences"), when what I'm actually doing is strictly following the sources and he is the one changing it simply because he wants. His comments above don't help either. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a trend here. It seems that this Fdom individual targets low-traffic or niche linguistic articles which often goes under the radar and therefore safer to pick fights with other editors about.Mazamadao (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly seems that way. I wonder why the admins rarely seem to intervene?  Tewdar  10:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like, Yeah, you strike me as a purely borderline-obsessive sociopath. You do need to seek help is completely unacceptable. What does Fdom5997 need to do to get a block? Use the term 'legacy admin'? 🤣  Tewdar  10:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because no admin other than me has even seen that comment, and I'm far more reluctant to use the block tool than almost all other admins, as I promised I would be at WP:Requests for adminship/Pppery. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was showing at AN/I all morning, but I suppose it's possible no admin saw it until Hammersoft did. Anyway, blocked for a week now. 🙂  Tewdar  16:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]