Talk:Tutnese

Tutnese and its use in other countries

I moved to the USA in 2007 and was introduced to something called Yuckish (I think thats how it is spelt). Yuckish I was told was a language used by black slaves to teach their children how to read etc without the owners knowing. Within the family I have married into it was (and still is) used by adults to communicate without the children understanding. That is until the children crack the code, this was looked upon favourably. There are some subtle differences but not many, could this be a link to the slave trade as the Dutch Boers were quite heavily involved and the indication is that Tutnese originated with the Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.168.66 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Double Dutch (language game)

This redirects to Tutnese, but possibly refers to something different, and may explain some of the changes that resulted in this version, which doesn't mention Tutnese. Peter E. James (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ

Hi. this language is sacred and its used for african american people only. you all just gave white people the tools to access the language and the ability to translate it. the language was meant to only be used by black ppl and this is NOT OKAY. It has happened to my friends who spoke it to not be understood by whites. Tut isnt just pig latin, it should be protected like it was meant to be and not in a public article such as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniesw (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

Blackhistorian1 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Tutnese (Also known as "Tut" or Double Dutch) is a language game primarily used in English (particular the AAVE dialect) although the rules can be easily modified to apply to almost any language. Created by enslaved African Americans, Tutnese has traditionally been used by African Americans when in the presence of oppressive power structures such as slave holders, or police ("pupolulisus" or "pizolizice"), by children, who use it to converse in privacy from adult

Word Example:

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Very important

This language is very sacred and should be no where on the internet. Please delete this entry, think of the language as a closed practice. This entry is very disrespectful In all kinds of ways even though that may not have been your intention it still is.

-a person who understands boundaries 2601:204:D77F:22F0:35D3:1854:B056:34DA (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Please Delete. This is highly sacred.

Please delete 2601:189:C480:D5D0:894D:37E9:23B:EF7 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia removal request

This is a sensitive and sacred language occupied by the African American diaspora.I'm requesting the page to be deleted. If theirs a better way to make this request, please make that known. Expect others to visit this page with the same request until it is done.I appreciate this site for what it offers otherwise) 10:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.55.133 (talk)

DELETE IT.

Man wtf wrong with yall this is a secret language for black ppl and yall done expose it on a public website. THIS IS IS FOR BLACK PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE ONLY!!! 2001:1A40:161F:D400:A0D6:5D8A:7361:ECEC (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

TAKE THIS DOWN

This is a SECRET sacred language, having this article present for anyone to see puts ALL black Americans in danger !! 2603:6011:9F0:8460:143A:2906:B925:DCE1 (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

I am requesting that this page be deleted to honor the rules and code of learning the language. This language was and is still meant to be taught to Foundational Black Americans and that must be verified prior to learning. Tut is not meant to be shared and this pages violates the rules that have been set to keep the language private and agmonst Descendants of slaves and we request that everyone respect that. Chocol8doll (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bowler the Carmine As a fellow college student, I get the desire to explore and share knowledge. But let’s be clear: Tutnese is a closed language, created by Black Americans as a tool of survival and resistance when everything else was stolen from us. Its purpose was to protect—not to be put on display or stripped of its meaning.

Unlike you, I’m not holding someone else’s culture hostage. If you truly respect Tutnese and its origins, you’d honor the wishes of the community it belongs to and step back. We are actively working to restore and revitalize this language for our people—not to have it treated like public property.

Please reconsider your approach. If you want to help, start by listening. SoulaanStallion (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand why the Black American community wishes for Tutnese to remain secret. Were it not for Wikipedia's policy on censorship and removal of objectionable content, I would have implemented this request, or at least given it more thought. But the censorship policy, in a nutshell, is this:

No editor or group of editors has the right to decide what material should or should not be included in Wikipedia, as long as the material is otherwise compliant with Wikipedia's policies.

If you have any questions about this policy, the Teahouse is a good place to ask them. Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

Please change the entire document to not existing entirely, and delete the translations of the letters. A community to which this language belongs is requesting its deletion. I hope that is enough to warrant its removal from an open online source that non-Black Americans can easily access. Please respect our wishes. Not everything has to be available to the public. SoulaanStallion (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• The idea of allowing particular individuals, groups, companies, organistations, interest groups, etc to control content of the encyclopaedia relating to themselves is totally contrary to the whole concept of Wikipedia. It is completely out of the question. JBW (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Aside from that, once it's out there, it's out there. Removing discussion of it from Wikipedia will do little to keep it a secret. Pointing out inaccuracies or failed verification is welcome, however. Nardog (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

article on Tutnese: possible additional published sources for its history section

Hello. While reading the published literature on Tutnese (a/k/a Tut, Tutnee, Tutahash) and related English-language secret-language systems (as these often appear to be different names for basically the same system are very close variants of that system), I encountered several published sources with important information that I do not currently see reflected in the article. Before attempting any edits, I wanted to ask whether editors think these sources would be appropriate to consider.

The sources appear to address somewhat different historical questions. Some describe the structure and use of the language itself, others document its use in particular communities, and others record family traditions concerning historical origin. I therefore thought it best to ask for guidance before proposing changes.

The publications I have in mind include:

Alexander Francis Chamberlain, The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought (1896), summarizing Oscar Chrisman’s work on Tut and discussing a reported transmission history involving Black schoolgirls in Texas and Jamaica. (This appears to be separate from, and not to reflect, they often stated or assumed historical transmission path involving enslaved African-Americans on plantations in the southeastern USA. For example, not only aren’t the school girls involved from the southeastern, USA, but the transmission history as given by the source does not appear to acknowledge or correlated with literacy efforts there.)

Ernest Thompson Seton, Two Little Savages (1903), which contains a description of a language called “Tutnee,” including its formation rules and examples. This appears to be identical, or nearly identical with,Tutnese, but the transmission path as described by Satan in his novel (which is widely presume to be realistic, and to draw his own live experiences) does not state any specific connection with African-Americans, enslavement, or literacy efforts.

Maya Angelou, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969), which documents childhood use of Tut in memoir. This is an association with African-Americans, and is described discouraging within an African-American community, but does not state any connection with clandestine literacy efforts.

Gloria McIlwain, “Tut Language,” American Speech (1994), which records a family tradition concerning Tut’s historical origin while also describing the language itself. This is 1994 document is, as far as I can discern, the earliest source to assert that the language developed in the 18th century, and is also the earliest source to assert that the language developed as a clandestine literacy teaching effort.

James F. Bender, “Ourway Ecretsay Anguageslay” (The New York Times Magazine, 31 December 1944), which discusses Tutahash alongside other secret-language systems. As elsewhere in sources I’ve found, and is typical of all sources previous to McIlwain’s 1994 writing, this coverage of the language does not state any connection with enslavement, literacy efforts, or specifically the southeastern USA. Instead, the writer experienced (and described) Tutnese as simply one of several language codes made up and used by children in the USA.

My questions for editors are:

Do these publications appear appropriate for consideration in expanding the article’s historical coverage? Have I overlooked other published sources that should be considered alongside them? If these sources are relevant, what would be the best way to incorporate them while keeping the article balanced and well sourced?

My goal is simply to identify additional published literature that may be relevant to the article, rather than to advocate any particular historical interpretation. In this context, given that the earliest source to claim an 18th-century enslavement/secret literacy connection for the language is a 1994 source which gives its source as undocumented oral statements by family menbers about the origin of the system, is there perhaps room for any doubt that this is the whole story? ~2026-37470-83 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)