I do not wish to see “nko” changed from Nkonya – it is already in usage.
The references given to where the names are used is to an ISO character-encoding proposal -- a secondary source. I’d prefer to see a reference to something other than a coding proposal, though I don’t see this as a cause to block anything. It just leaves one question open in my mind: that document cites an alternate name, Kangbe (fr: kangbé), and it appears to treat *that* name as the preferred name. It seems at least that the EN/FR names should at least include both forms, and it’s unclear to me which should be listed first.
The description of this as a “literary dialect” certainly does raise a question in my mind as to whether this is best considered a variant of something larger, and I think it would be helpful if that were clarified. It’s not clear to me if this should really be considered a distinct language alongside other related languages, whether it should be considered a register or dialect of some other language, or whether it should be considered an individual language along with others for which a common macrolanguage is also identified.
I don’t find a single reference to
Kangbe in Ethnologue, which I find surprising, unless this variety has evolved
only recently. There are references to N’Ko script (spelled Nko in E.) in
“Heine (1970) surveys lingua francas
and pidgins in sub-Saharan
which split into Malinke (165), Dyula (166) and Bambara (164; see §8.2), and also apparently
gave rise to the pidginized Kangbe (170-71). Much later, the Wadai empire was founded in the
17th century in what is now eastern
capital and surrounding area became the lingua franca of the empire (115).”
To summarize my comments:
- don’t change “nko” from Nkonya
- I’d like to see clarification re the names “Kangbe” and “N’Ko” – which should be listed first?
- I’d find it helpful to get input from experts in Mandean linguistics to clarify the linguistic / sociolinguistic facts.