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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
The article states that mixing with "non-American Indians" brought English into the culture.
Did the writer mean "non-Indian Americans"? I cannot imagine what non-American Indians might be in this context. Hence, I cannot see the logic of the present statement.
Trevor H. (UK) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Trevor, "non-Indian Americans" would strike me more as referring as: "all those persons not belonging to the ethnic group of Americans originally from or with an ancestry based in India." I see your logic, though. It's a matter of governing, right? You're taking it as [[non-American] Indians] rather than [non-[American Indians]]. I think that the latter interpretation would be the more common because [American Indians] is a valid single phrase when in conjunct (rather than [American][Indian] without [[American][Indian]], at least in US English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunsushi (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
