Talk:Mangani

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed 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.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 11:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangani language described/depicted muddle

In the "As a language" section, one mustn't lose sight (sic) of the fact that Mangani is a written fiction. It's not "seen" (as as if a visual language, like in everyday signs etc) in the Tarzan books, it's only "described". Thus it can't be right to use the term "depicted" in the first two paras, as in for example "The Mangani language is depicted as a primal universal language..." , and "In the later Tarzan novels, Tarzan is shown conversing in Mangani..." (Shown? - No! No! They're not cartoon books!), and "Other jungle animals are depicted as having their own bestial languages..." I'm aware that words are "seen, shown" on the page, but let's not get into visually exstential semantics - I'm not an expert linguist, I'm just suggesting the need for a bit of common sense. Thus the section should be amended to say "The Mangani language is described as if a...", and just "Tarzan converses in Mangani...", and "Other jungle animals are described as having their own...". The problem of apparent misdescription does not exist in the 3rd para however, which currently states: The Mangani language as described by Burroughs is made up largely of grunts and growls representing nouns and various basic concepts. The bestial quality of the speech, however, does not come through in the rather large lexicon of Mangani words Burroughs actually provides. The depicted language can be thought of as bearing a relationship to the described language similar to that of the movies' euphonious "Tarzan yell" to the books' terrifying "victory cry of the bull ape" from which it supposedly derives; the example in each instance falls short of embodying the description. There, the concept of the author's lexicon of Mangani words being 'on the page' (and thus 'visual' to the reader) is properly introduced, enabling the follow-on distinction between depicted and described to be used sensibly. The 3rd para is somewhat POV writing however, no evidential basis (ie. no citation), which is a pity, as a cite would have been useful in support. Note also that the 3rd para refers to "the movies' euphonious Tarzan yell". But euphonious means "pleasing to the air", and is usually taken to mean a sweet sound, so I'm not sure the particular adjective used is 100% appropriate. And as for the para-ending's "the example in each instance falls short of embodying the description" - I've given up trying to understand what that means... Pete Hobbs (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Kreegah bundolo?

I'm proposing that Kreegah bundolo should be merged into Mangani because of the article's lack of notability and overlap with Mangani. EdTre (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]