Talk:Akan language

There is no evidence that 'Akan' is a name given to them by Arabs. Besides doubting that 'akan' even has any meaning in Arabic, it is well-documented on Europeans maps of the 'Gold Coast', that as early as 1573 the Akan were a distinct group within what we now call 'the Akan-speaking people, Fante, Brong, Akyem, etc. They were an interior group known to Europeans as 'Hacanys, Acanes, Acanni' and occupied an area now partly in the Ashanti region (see pages 259-260 in P.E.H Hair's Ethnolinguistic Continuity on the Guinea Coast from the Journal of African History 8, 2 (1967)

Why would Arabs single that group out and how did they compel the Hacanys/Acanes/Acanni to accept this as an ethno-political name? It doesn't make any sense. It is also well-documented in much of the literature on the Akan that through the western & central areas of West Africa, as well as Saharan, and North Africa the Akan were known variously as ‘To’ (Akan), ‘To-na’ (Akan country), 'Tonawa' (Akan people). The area they occupied was known as 'Toom' to Arab and other Muslim writers, who would have been unlikely to use 'Akan' to describe a person from a place they knew as 'Toom'.

As early as 1505-1508 'Toom' was mentioned by the Portuguese trader Duarte Pacheco Pereira in his book Esmeraldo de Situ Orbis. (see Wangara, Akan, and Portuguese in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. I. The Matter of Bitu by Ivor Wilks from the Journal of African History, 23, 3 (1982)

In both Arabic and European literature 'Toom' was known but it is only Toom and the variations of ‘To’ that are used in nearly all of Islamic Africa while 'Akan' in not mentioned in their writings. As previously mentioned, 'Hacanys, Acanes, Acanni' was mentioned in European writings to describe a group of people and perhaps an ethno-political entity. Where would have Europeans gotten such a word? Considering the majority of the people they encountered and traded with were 'Akan-speakers' the name probably came from Akan-speakers. It is made even more likely when one considers the word 'akan' has meaning in the 'Akan language'; something close to 'foremost'. Further, in the ’Akan language’ the 'ni' added to the end of 'Hacanys, Acanes, Acanni' denotes membership in an ethnic group, a political unit, and a class, among other things.

Arabs were not necessary for the Akan to use 'Akan'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.8.159.131 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Is it a tonal language? Badagnani 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are a native speaker of Akan then you can help translate this template into your own language:

{{User aka}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_aka Edit]

--Amazonien (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:I suggested on the discussion page for the template to use the 2-letter code "ak" rather than the 3-letter code "aka." This is the general practice where 2-letter (ISO 639-1) codes exist (for example "en" for English rather than "eng").--A12n (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

20000 words - sounds like a single language. Contributions/80.186.4.11 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:I think this refers to a collection of common words - a step towards standardization perhaps - not a complete lexicon of these closely related languages.--A12n (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have gotten the impression that Akan in a linguistic sense is used in wider and narrower senses: (1) one as a large linguistic category discussed in the article redirected from Akan languages; and (2) as a "macrolanguage" including Fante and varieties of Twi spoken mainly in Ghana. This article seems to fall somewhere inbetween, so as not to say that it confuses the issue. Are Baule and Anyin (which I understand to be close to each other) also interintelligible with Twi and Fante in the same way that the latter two are interintelligible? In other words, does it make sense to include Baule and Anyin in this article on "Akan language" (the narrower sense)? Or as something else within the larger "Akan languages" sense?--A12n (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:The articles were confused, which was partially my fault. Akan means both the language with the new standard orthography, Twi-Fante, and all the varieties spoken by the Akan people, including Baoule. The latter usage is synonymous with Central Tano. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The citation style in this article is inconsistent. Anybody with time and inclination should attempt to attach the references to the article using the

:In order to beef up the reference section, I've attached a link to the HathiTrust public domain version of the Twi Basic Course reference. Let me know if this is not appropriate.TheExtraEditor (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Twi is spoken in Suriname? What's the source for this? The wiki page on Suriname doesn't mention Twi, although it mentions Dutch, Sranan Tongo, Hindi, English, Sarnami, Javanese, Malay, Bhojpuri, Hakka, Cantonese, Saramaccan, Paramaccan, Ndyuka, Kwinti, Matawai, Cariban, and Arawakan Kalina.

Let's find a source or delete the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.47.7 (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Raised my eyebrows, too. It may be that Akan used to be spoken in Suriname and has had an influence on contemporary language (e.g. pidgins, creoles, or the vocabulary of particular dialects), but I really doubt it's still spoken in the country. I'd like to see a reputable source.

Dan Cottrell (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

:Deleted. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a typical native Akan speaker from infancy. That's my mother tongue. I can speak other dialects of the Twi such as the Asante, and Akuapem or Akuapim.

Personally, I mix them all when speaking for ease and good expressions.

I'm wondering how I can gain administrative access to the Main Page and start changing a whole deal of mistakes and grammatical errors in there.

First point of correction is the heading, "Nimdeebuukuu". Its wrong, frankly. It should rather be, "Nimdeε Nhoma". I'm sure the translator of that expression wanted to mean something like, "Knowledge Book". But hey! We don't have the word "buukuu" in Twi or any other dialects of Twi. Its rather "Nhoma".

There's countless changes that need to be done and more translations. Please help me out so that I can gain access to the Main area where I can make substantial changes to the Akan Pages including the Main Page.

Nkansahrexford (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Nkansah Rexford, Koforidua, Ghana.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Akan language. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080602221106/http://www.abibitumikasa.com/forums/akan-language-resources/ to http://www.abibitumikasa.com/forums/akan-language-resources/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429215146/http://www.journalofwestafricanlanguages.org/Akan.aspx to http://www.journalofwestafricanlanguages.org/Akan.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806111145/http://www.abibitumikasa.com/forums/akan-twi-language-resources/ to http://www.abibitumikasa.com/forums/akan-twi-language-resources/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923020454/http://www.bahai-site.org/writings/african/akanasante.html to http://www.bahai-site.org/writings/african/akanasante.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This page could benefit from an orthography section. 2600:1008:B12B:C9BA:3D2C:137A:B52B:B47D (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

no

no

I have fully protected this article for a month as it is clear the dispute is proving somewhat intractable. Discussion should take place here and I will remove the protection when agreement has been reached. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I think all we need is for Bosomba to provide quotations from accessible reliable sources for the changes he wants to make. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Akan language consists of dialects of Akuapem, Asante, Akyem, Bono, Fante, Wasa etc. All these dialects are mutually intelligible to each other. Read https://www.scribd.com/document/499620036/Kwame-Arhin-A-profile-of-Brong-Kyempim-1 p.88

Therefore treating Bono and Wasa as separate dialects are unacceptable and misleading. The dialects are arranged from the oldest to the newest “Brong and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante” in this order, with explanations. Read https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20 p.18 This is how it should be maintained — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosomba Amosah (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:The article currently reflects the sources that you provided. Your sources [as well as all other sources I know of] consider Bono and Wasa to be separate dialects. Or are you claiming that the Bono people speak Wasa? — kwami (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::That’s not a reflection of the sources, you are misleading and misrepresenting sources here. There you are, how can Bono being dialect of Akan and being mutually intelligible with Fante, Akyem, Asante, Akuapem etc and at the same time be considered a separate dialect? Is this reasonable to you? Which source are you talking about again. The evidence is clear, you are misleading and misrepresenting sources, that would not be tolerated. When did I claim Bono people speak Wasa? Stop putting words in my mouth. Whatever I have quoted here is in the book, obviously. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Often when you respond you contradict your previous response, making it difficult to understand what your position is. You now seem to be saying that Bono is not a dialect of Akan ['how can Bono ... be considered a separate dialect'] at the same time that you say it is a dialect of Akan. Previously you had said that it was the same as Wasa dialect, which would mean that the Bono speak Wasa [or equivalently that the Wasa speak Bono]. Perhaps you don't understand what the word 'dialect' means in linguistics. You can read that article if you're not sure.

:::Please [a] say which changes you want to make to the article [make a bulleted or numbered list if there's more than one thing], and [b] provide quotations from accessible RS's that support each of those changes. Dolphyne, who you introduced to this discussion, is an excellent pair of sources, and ones that we have access to.

:::As long as you refuse to do that, and merely make incoherent accusations, you're not going to be able to achieve anything. If this isn't important enough for you to make that minimal effort, then there's no reason for the rest of us to put in the time to try to decipher what you're trying to say, especially when you go on to contradict yourself in your next response. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::No, you are twisting things and stop introducing different topics. You know and admits my sources are better than yours. The sources I provided saids “Bono is a dialect of Akan and mutually intelligible with Asante, Akuapem, Fante, Akyem etc” as vividly written on p.88. Your edits rather claim Bono and Wasa are separate dialects by using your supposedly sources which you have plainly admitted isn’t a better source. This contradicts. Secondary, the dialects are arranged from the oldest to the newest as vividly written in p.18 which I have already pointed out. Written as “Brong and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuampem-Fante”. This is the chronology and this is how it should reflect on the clade, as my edits already align with that.

::::So in a nutshell (1). Bono, Akyem, Asante, Wasa, Akuapem Fante are all Akan dialects and mutually intelligible with each other.

::::(2). The chronology of the clade from the oldest to newest should reflect “Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante”. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We already say [1], so I don't know what your point is.

:::::As for [2], we currently follow Dolphyne, which is the source that you introduced. If you now think another source is better, you need to provide that source. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2005, says basically the same thing - 'In genetic terms, Akuapem is more closely related to Fante than to the other dialects, but all of these dialects are mutually intelligible. The Brong dialect group of the Brong-Ahafo Region to the north of Ashanti is mutually intelligible with Asante Twi, but there is less mutual intelligibility with the dialects spoken farthest south.' — kwami (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::(1) We go by the sources, as the source says the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other. As such your edits or the current edits deviates from such. Therefore there is no such thing and treatment of Bono and Wasa as a separate dialects. This is total deviation and it won’t be tolerated. They are all classified as Akan and mutually intelligible to each other.

::::::Moreover, it seems you are introducing a different source. Yet let me remind you that, others numerous sources attest it’s mutually intelligible to each other.

::::::The Oxford Handbook of African Languages, 2020 says “…Akan, by far the most widely spoken Kwa language, with a number of mutually intelligible dialects, including Asante Twi, Akuapem Twi, Fante and Bono(Brong)”.

::::::Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2013 says “Akan is the largest of the central Tano group of languages. Until 1950s, these clusters of mutually intelligible varieties, did not have a single name… however, a unified Akan orthography was designed by Akan Orthography Committee and since then the name Akan has been adopted as the name of the language”.

::::::(2) Dolphyne p.18 saids the arrangement of the dialects from the oldest to newest. In this case, you are not following it. Therefore it must be followed. Any other thing would not be tolerated. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Nothing you've said contradicts the article. You don't even seem to know what a 'dialect' is. Educate yourself on the subject so you have something worthwhile to say. For example, I can't decipher what you're trying to say about Bono and Wasa -- you repeatedly say they're the same dialect, then deny you said that, then say it again, then deny you said it again.

:::::::As for the dialect chart, that was taken directly from the source you say we should use. If there's a contradiction, it would have to be a copy error on our part. You need to specify what that contradiction is.

:::::::To spell it out even more clearly for you, if you have a reliable source that contradicts what we say in the article, [1] quote the relevant section of the article, and [2] quote the relevant section of your source, and [3] explain what needs to be corrected in the article. As long as you refuse to do this, your wishes will not be implemented. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is clear contradiction in the current article. As the sources clarify on the dialects being mutually intelligible to each other; however the current article deviates from that and treat Bono and Wasa a separate dialect. The clade also treats Wasa and Bono as a separate dialects. These are the contradictions and deviations. So the sources are clear, and we won’t deviate from such.

::::::::Let me be clear again and simple. It’s like you are not reading the sources with the pages cited neither do you read the quotations. Jumping into conclusion here and there, without facing the sources. We follow the sources.

::::::::Therefore (1) the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other, per the sources and quotes. So neither of the dialects will be treated as separate. (2) The clade should reflect the sources, devoid of treating Bono and Wasa as a separate dialects. Such treatment and deviation won’t be tolerated on the clade. We follow strictly the RS Bosomba Amosah (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay, I think I see what the problem is -- please read mutual intelligibility. There is no contradiction between saying that they are separate dialects and that they are mutually intelligible. In fact, that is the normal situation. If they were not separate dialects, then Akan would have no dialects. We would need to remove the 'dialects' section of this article and delete the Bono, Wasa, Akuapem, Asante and Fante articles. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Stop telling me what I already know on mutual intelligibility. They are all different dialects mutually intelligible to each other, therefore there is no need pointing out Bono and Wasa as separate dialects from the rest. Are you really reasoning here? If all the dialects are all mutually intelligible, then why are your edits treating Bono and Wasa as less Akan, based on the notes and the clade? Your edits will never be taken, we go strictly by the sources. Bono and Wasa should be in the same direct line as Asante, Akuapem and Fante. The clade should be “Bono-Wasa-Asante-Akuapem-Fante” in the same steep line and one starting point. That’s the true reflection of Dolphyne source (p.18). Therefore there is only one starting point in the source, it never treated “Asante-Akuapem-Fante” from one point closer to Akan, meaning more Akan whiles “Bono-Wasa” from another point far from Akan making it less Akan. That’s rubbish and it won’t be tolerated.

::::::::::If you see no contradiction, then Bono and Wasa should be in the position of the Asante-Akuapem-Fante on the clade and vice versa. Otherwise it won’t be tolerated. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Perhaps you should get a 3rd opinion from someone who understands the topic. What you will 'tolerate' is irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::WP is not based on someone’s opinion but RS. We therefore go by what’s written in the RS. We are not sharing opinions here. Simple Bosomba Amosah (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Kwamikagami}} and {{u|Bosomba Amosah}}, I have fully protected the article for 48 hours to halt the edit warring, per a request for page protection that was submitted in response to this dispute. Instead of reinstating your preferred version of the article, please use dispute resolution to determine what content should be included or excluded from the article. You may discuss your preferred changes on this talk page, or if you would like input from uninvolved editors, I recommend either using the dispute resolution noticeboard or starting a request for comment. Thank you.

(See also: {{slink|Talk:Twi#Resolving the content dispute}}, {{slink|Talk:Bono dialect#Resolving the content dispute}}, {{slink|Talk:Central Tano languages#Resolving the content dispute}}) — Newslinger talk 03:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:We're just waiting on Bosomba stating which changes they want and providing sources that support those changes — kwami (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapsetop|Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::You rather need to stop being disruptive and misleading. We have discussed this over and over again, yet it appears you are still hanging on to your sources which aren’t better. It has already been established we are using my sources, and for that matter Dolphyne. So I don’t understand why you keep using your sources which aren’t better. My stance is clear, and it is based on Dolphyne as we all agreed. Admin, since you have accepted to protect the page as part of your responsibility, then I would suggest you look into the references we are using and see who is being disruptive and misleading. Cited sources:The languages of the Akan peoplesp.9,12,18 and Bono dialect of Akanp.88-116 Bosomba Amosah (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The first source again https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20p.9,12,18 Bosomba Amosah (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've adopted your sources, as you know full well. Dolphyne is an excellent source; the problem is that she disagrees with you. You've even admitted that, but insist that we should ignore what she says even while citing her. That's not how we use sources on WP [or anywhere, for that matter]. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::At this stage, it appears you aren’t following the sources of Dolphyne and you are still using your sources. The edit history confirms this and per your current edit. And at the moment, I suggest the admin should read the sources himself/herself. We want to see who is misleading who. Dolphyne has clearly listed the language. Stating “Akan-Brong and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante”. Nowhere did she arranged it “Akan- Asante and Akyem-Akuampem-Fante

::::: Brong and Wasa”

:::::The best thing right now, is the admin reading the sources and checking why you are still using your sources which aren’t better Bosomba Amosah (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::To the extent I can decipher what you just wrote, you appear to disagree with the dialect tree. That follows the sources listed, including p16 of the one you just linked to. Since you have access to the sources -- they're your sources, after all -- and the info in this article is taken from those sources, I don't see where the disagreement comes in.

::::::If you want to change something, spell out what you want to change. Intelligibly. Not just a string of seemingly random words in scare quotes, but the actual wording you want for the article. I've asked for this many many times -- it's not difficult. — kwami (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I doubt your good faith, as you continually misrepresent the sources and mislead. We resort to only the RS because your opinion based edits isn’t acceptable Bosomba Amosah (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

Dolphyne is the better source which we all agreed to use, and per Dolphyne. The dialects are arranged as Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. This is the true reflection. All the dialects are from one point to Akan cascading in that respective order and not from two points, making some dialects more Akan and the rest less Akan.

Again, the source says all the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other, because of that a neural name Akan has been adopted for the dialects. This is what the source says, and should be looked into to reflect the source. As per discussion and guidelines from DRN Bosomba Amosah (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Now that the source has clarified issues, the reflection should take place in the article to avoid any misrepresentations for better understanding Bosomba Amosah (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on a discussion at DRN, three editors think that the community should consider merging Twi into Akan language.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Some rules based on Wikipedia policies and guidance will facilitate this merge discussion.

• Be civil and concise.
• Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.
• Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but they usually do not communicate much other than the fact that the poster is long-winded.
• Comment on content, not contributors. Talk about whether to merge the articles, not the other editors.
• Discuss edits, not editors. This repeats the previous statement because it needs repeating.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• support - twi is an endonym/autonym for 'akan' used by most if not all speakers apart from the fante. it does not constitute a coherent node linguistically, and would be best covered in a 'name' section of the akan language article, where we can discuss the history of why 'akan' rather than 'twi' was chosen as the official name of the language. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• support - Akan language is Twi-Fante per source, this means Twi includes all the dialects except Fante because they rejected the name Twi, whereas Akan as a common neutral name was acceptable to all. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• We have a Twi Wikipedia and a Fante Wikipedia, but the Akan Wikipedia was closed: m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Akan Wikipedia 2. I think it would make sense to talk to some of the editors involved in that discussion and not in the DRN discussion, such as Ruby D-Brown or Yaw tuba, to see if they can recommend a sensible outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|Akan language|answered=yes}}

The merge template,

{{merge from|Twi|discuss=Talk:Akan_language#Merge_Twi_into_Akan_language|date=May 2025}}

current misplaced on the talk page, should be added to the top of the article page. Klbrain (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{done}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

As suggested by the moderator during DRN, discussion is required for consensus as Kwami has reverted my edits.

The source of Dolphyne says Akan language is Twi-Fante. Whereas the dialects are Akuapem, Fante, Bono, Asante, Wasa, Akyem etc. It is only Fante who rejected the name label Twi, the rest of the dialects are classified as Twi.

Dolphyne also arranged the dialects as Akan- Bono and Wasa- Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. All the dialects are cascading from one line. Also all the dialects are mutually intelligible to each other. At this stage, the article doesn’t reflect the source and it should be changed or corrected Bosomba Amosah (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with {{u|Bosomba Amosah}} that the article should more accurately reflect Dolphyne’s classification. Dolphyne clearly states that Akan comprises the Twi-Fante cluster, with dialects such as Asante, Akuapem, Bono, Wasa, Akyem (under Twi), and Fante being mutually intelligible. While Fante speakers may reject the Twi label, linguistically they remain part of the broader Akan continuum. As the article currently does not reflect this structure or the relationship among the dialects per Dolphyne, I support an edit to clarify this.

According to Dolphyne:

“The major dialects of Akan are Fante, Asante, Akuapem, Bono, Wasa, Akyem… grouped as Twi and Fante, though mutually intelligible.”Dolphyne, Florence Abena. (1988). The Akan (Twi-Fante) Language: Its Sound Systems and Tonal Structure. Accra: Ghana Universities Press, p. 5.

Sweetabena (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:what exactly is inaccurate? — kwami (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:i added a quote from Dolphyne that, from the pov of fante, bono is a different language. i don't know if this is why it's classified as a distinct language in iso. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Whiles Dolphyne says the Akan language with its dialects as vividly explained. [https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20 The Akan language]. At the moment you are not following the sources Bosomba Amosah (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Clearly the article needs revision to reflect the source. Exactly what Dolphyne says. The Akan language whose dialects are Akuapem, Akyem, Bono, Fante, Wasa, Asante etc. on p.12. She further stated Akan language is Twi-Fante. All the dialects are Twi except Fante as it was rejected by them (Fante) in 1950s. Also Dolphyne on p.18 grouped the the dialects as: Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. This is based on the clade. In summary, this is how the overall article should reflect, and it should be changed Bosomba Amosah (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::As it appears now, the article must be changed Bosomba Amosah (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::you have yet to say how it should be changed. spell it out. come on, this isn't difficult. — kwami (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Do you read my submission at all. The clade should reflect as:

::::Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. All the dialects cascading from one point in one line.

::::Again, all the dialects of the Akan language are mutually intelligible with each other and it is grouped as a single unit, with neutral name Akan.

::::Lastly, it appears whiles even the merge discussion has not ended yet, you have already made some inputs. Yet again, there is misrepresentation there especially the Name section.

::::The name proposed was Twi but it was rejected by Fante. So Akan was rather adopted. So it is: Akan Twi-Fante, not Akan ‘Fante and Brong’ Bosomba Amosah (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::yes, i read what you wrote, but it's largely unintelligible - that's why i have repeatedly asked you to spell out exactly what you want

:::::to the best i can understand it, everything you just claimed is contradicted by dolphyne or the cited source - dolphyne's classification is nothing like what you say, she says that the dialects are not all mutually intelligible, and the names you object to are a cited quotation. so, once again, stop wasting our time and [1] say what you want, [2] provide a source that agrees with you. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::At the moment, we just follow the source not your opinion. Your opinion is not a RS. [https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20 Akan language] p.9 says the dialects are mutually intelligible with the name ‘Akan’. Page 18 also says Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. That’s how the dialects are arranged per source. All cascading from one line and a single point.

:::::: Page 12 also list the dialects. Your edits is partly misrepresentation and misleading, it does not reflect the source. In the name section, you have misrepresented the source, the name initially proposed was Twi but rejected by Fante. The name Akan was adopted, which is now Twi-Fante.

::::::So what’s with this Akan ‘Fante and Brong’ stuffs. Provide source for your edits, because it’s misleading Bosomba Amosah (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Provide source with page numbers for your edits. Your opinion is not RS Bosomba Amosah (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::the source has been there since the statement was added — kwami (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And those statements doesn’t reflect the source, Dolphyne didn’t say most of those things. So the best thing is to provide a page number as I have done. I make quotations and provide page numbers, this is for easy identification. As I’m finding it difficult to get information on the clade you made and not mutually intelligible claim. Like I pointed before, Dolphyne says (per clade p.18) Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. It also says the dialects are mutually intelligible as pointed out with page(9) earlier cited. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::the clade is on p15, not 18, and it contradicts you. p18 arranges dialects according to how many sound changes they've undergone, not according to how closely related they are.

::::::::::also, this article was written in 1975; Dolphyne has written more since then, and it's her later publications that we've been using.

::::::::::neighboring akan dialects are all mutually intelligible, but more distant ones are not necessarily so, per the citations here and as have been repeatedly given to you in these discussions. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Clearly you are trying to misrepresent the source here, I just checked p.15 and nothing of such can be found. That’s exactly opposite of what you are doing. Page 15 arranges the dialects according to closeness to each other with consonants, even with that, it all stems from one point.

:::::::::::P.18 on the other hand arranges the dialects from the oldest to the newest per the clade. Such as Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. This is what the sources says. We are gradually getting there, it seems you are now trying run off the source. Clearly I have quoted on p.12 that it says all the dialects are mutually intelligible. On the profile of Brong kyempem, it also says the dialects are mutually intelligible. We are using Dolphyne source, so bring the source, quote it and provide page numbers just like I have done. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::no, that's not what it says. try reading the words on the page, even when they contradict your preconceptions — kwami (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::This is misrepresentation, there is no such thing as you claim. The source clearly states everything on p.9, 12 and 18.

:::::::::::::P.9 reads The concept of a language as a single unit therefore has to be forged by incorporating all the mutually intelligible dialects into one language and giving that language a name. This i s what has happened with the adoption of the neutral name 'Akan' for the language spoken in Ghana whose dialects include Asantes, Fante, Akyem, Agona, Gomua, Brong and Akuapem

:::::::::::::P.12 Also list the dialects of Akan language.

:::::::::::::P.18 also arranges the dialects according to ages, from the oldest to newest reflecting as Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante

:::::::::::::[https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20 Akan language] I think at the moment I have been specific, providing sources and page numbers, as well as quotations. I would like you to do the same, because what you are saying isn’t found in the source and it’s based on your personal views. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::we shouldn't be using a source 50 years old when she's written better things since then

::::::::::::::they're not oldest to newest, but are grouped by how conservative they are, as others have explained to you several times

::::::::::::::you clearly have either no ability or no desire to understand your own sources — kwami (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Personal opinion doesn’t count here as against RS. For specification and clarity, that’s why I have provided a source, with page numbers and quotations. If you believe something different, you must provide that source with page numbers and quotes. Like just mere saying doesn’t conform to RS. This is to improve the article to reflect accuracy. Discuss the content, that’s the subject matter. Failing to provide source than opinions and personal conception is completely different from WP RS. Support your claim with source, quotations and page numbers Bosomba Amosah (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::repeating bullshit doesn't make it true

::::::::::::::::discounting rs's as 'personal opinion' does not make them personal opinion

::::::::::::::::denying that you've seen the refs and demanding to see them again and again and again, and then denying that they say what they say, is not going to convince anyone either

::::::::::::::::we've provided you with your own refs dozens of times, scattered over multiple pages because you keep content-forking the discussion

::::::::::::::::there's no point in continuing, as you'll just deny them again

::::::::::::::::you must think we're all stupid -- or is your strategy just to repeat bullshit until everyone gives up and lets you have your way — kwami (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Saying bullshit several times isn’t a subject matter. What’s importance here is content of the source. The source says all the dialects are mutually intelligible, it also arranges the dialects as Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante. Also arranged by ages in p.18, from the oldest to the newest. This is backed by rs, with quotations and page numbers. This is what the article must reflect, any contrary view must come with rs, backed by quotations and page numbers like I did. WP just goes by the sources and not personal opinion which isn’t backed by any rs Bosomba Amosah (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::i've cited dolphyne to you several times where she says that distant dialects are effectively distinct languages because they are not mutually intelligible

::::::::::::::::::yet we don't treat akan as multiple languages, we simply summarize what dolphyne says

::::::::::::::::::stop pretending to be illiterate — kwami (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::That’s what I’m saying, it’s your personal opinion and not rs. As Dolphyne has clearly stated that all the dialects are mutually intelligible with page numbers and quotations. As well as arrangements of the dialects. Dolphyne says Akan language consists of dialects of Akuapem, Fante, Bono, Asante, Wasa, Akyem etc as clearly defined on p.12. It shouldn’t be compromised, otherwise provide page numbers and quotations for that. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Dolphyne is not my 'personal opinion' -- she's your reference!

::::::::::::::::::::the quote 'a Fante-speaker will be right in looking on Bron [Bono] as a different language' is a direct quotation from Dolphyne with page number included

::::::::::::::::::::again, stop pretending to be stupid — kwami (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::That’s why the source clearly says, the dialects are all mutually intelligible on p.9 and the arrangement of the dialects on p.18 per ages, as well as the list of the dialects on p.12. This is what the source says and must be included in the article. This is to support accuracy and reflection of the rs. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::again, stop pretending to be stupid — kwami (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that’s what I have said several times, the dialects are all mutually intelligible, and the arrangement must be accordingly as per p.18. This is simple

Bosomba Amosah (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:that's not what she says, as you know full well by now — kwami (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::That’s why every statement comes with a quote, page number and RS.

::Im quoting on p.9

::: The concept of a language as a single unit therefore has to be forged by incorporating all the mutually intelligible dialects into one language and giving that language a name. This i s what has happened with the adoption of the neutral name 'Akan' for the language spoken in Ghana whose dialects include Asantes, Fante, Akyem, Agona, Gomua, Brong and Akuapem

::P.12 also says

::: The Akan language whose dialects are Asante, Akyem, Bron, Wassa, Kwahu, Fante, Agona, Gomua and Akuapem.

::P.18 also arranges the dialects according to ages, from the oldest to newest reflecting as

::: Akan-Bono and Wasa-Asante and Akyem-Akuapem-Fante

::[https://d.lib.msu.edu/asrvns/20 Akan language]

::Besides, the name section on the article also needs some correction. Twi was initially proposed for the dialects but was rejected by Fante, however Akan was acceptable to all. Bosomba Amosah (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::which is exactly what the article currently does

:::since you don't point out an actual errors, i take it that we are now in full agreement, and that the article is correct as it stands — kwami (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)