Dod Dos,
you wrote "Quechua" (singular)in your first text, I understand this as if you mention just this one language does exist, in this way as I read it in books: Indegnas in Ecuador speak in Quechua. A lot of people think they all speak Quechua as if exist just this one language, I thought in the same way. There was no ifferenciation between languages, Quechua not mentioned as a speech - family.
When I met some indegenas from South America, they told me they speak Quichua in Ecuador, not Quechua. In Peru they speak Quechua, in Bolivia Aymara. Near the frontier the languages are mixing. Some Ecuadorian indegenas react indignant, when they hear again and again: "Oh, you are from Ecuador, you speak Quechua", as if other people know better which languages they talk. Wrongly?
This comes to a question of mine: It is ok, to put different native languages in one big language - family? It could lead to misunderstandings just for a false interpretation if people don´t respect the difference in the languages. Misunderstanding can make people laugh, other hurts.
Another question: How many languages really exist in Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivien, ... ?
Would it be in the same way to tell all Sioux who talk their own language are talking Sioux? If we do not differenciate between Lakota, Nakota, and more, would misunderstandings raising up just we thought there is just one language? I don´t know.
If we put all the languages in speech - families, could it be that we put all the different nations in one melting pot?
