Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:jádí dághaaʼígíí. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:jádí dághaaʼígíí, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:jádí dághaaʼígíí in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:jádí dághaaʼígíí you have here. The definition of the word Talk:jádí dághaaʼígíí will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:jádí dághaaʼígíí, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFV
Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
This is just a test to see whether a randomly chosen Navajo noun describing something not found in the American Southwest can be cited. Only a single cite, use or mention, is required. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Very few Navajo words can be found online. Just because the animal doesn’t live in the Southwest is no reason not to be able to speak about them. How many black mambas have people seen in the U.S.? We still have a word for them. Navajo is descriptive. The Navajo names for things describe the things. —Stephen(Talk)05:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you have to find examples in books for words in languages that are virtually unwritten, then we have to stop adding words in those languages. Many books were destroyed in the 1940s to keep the language from being studied. Any surviving materials from the 1940s or earlier used a variety of makeshift orthographies, such as "nǽĕshjā băˊnă'ái", used by the Franciscan Friars for the hawk owl. Very few people can recognize that spelling today, which ignores glottal stops, nasalization, tone, and other important features of Navajo phonology. If you can find it somewhere, be my guest. Until then, we have to cease the Navajo effort. —Stephen(Talk)05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
@Stephen: If Navajo is essentially unwritten, then how do we know that this entry is accurate? If you said it to a native speaker, would they know what you were talking about?
A native speaker would understand it much better than many English speakers would understand northern hawk owl, echidna, or yowie. Northern hawk owl is three simple words, but it is really meaningless to the vast majority of people, except for the word owl. Navajo is a transparent language and people understand words even if they have not encountered them before. —Stephen(Talk)06:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Someone with access to a good university library should look in Young and Morgan's The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. It's probably in there. —Angr15:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
@Angr: Why would it be in a colloquial dictionary? How often do Navajo discuss gnu?
First of all, if it's the work I think it is, don't let the title fool you: it has just about everything you can think of in it- it weighs only slightly less than the gnu itself...
What makes you think that the Navajo discuss gnu? I certainly don't, or at least I can't remember the last time I did. This is one of the best attested Native American languages in terms of our CFI requirements, and yet the minimum of a single mention has not been reached. All that said... I'm trying to get access to my state's university system libraries. I'll see what I can do, but don't expect me to find it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have a copy in a box somewhere in my storage unit. If memory serves, it's over a thousand very large pages of near-microscopic type- potentially quite useful in hand-to-hand combat if one can lift it... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Chuck is certainly thinking of the same book I am, though I may have gotten the title wrong. Used properly with a sling, it could bring down a gnu. —Angr10:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
