![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't follow this reasoning. At least not in the context of an article titled "Malayo-Sumbawan languages". What the paragraph, taken for itself, seems to suggest is that Javanese does not belong to the Bali-Sasak group, which is admittedly unexpected on geographic grounds, and that the similarities are due to adstratum effects (specifically lexical borrowing, if the similarities are mainly lexical, as the comparison with English and French seems to suggest). However, Madurese and Malay are also listed as Malayo-Sumbawan languages here. Wouldn't this state of affairs (if Malayo-Sumbawan is a valid genetic unit and the situation described appropriately here) suggest that Javanese is also part of Malayo-Sumbawan? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Using another comparison, this sounds like a hypothetical argument that Danish cannot be a Germanic language because while its "refined" vocabulary resembles German and English, the basic language is much more similar to Icelandic – what this demonstrates is merely that Danish is not a West Germanic language, of course. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it the paragraph needs to be rewritten. The real message is Balinese and Sasak languages appears more similar to Javanese only with regard to 'high' registers, but are actually more similar to Madurese and Malay with regard to 'low' registers. Since 'low' register is regarded as the true basic form of a language, it can be concluded that Balinese and Sasak languages are actually close to Malay & Madurese, hence belongs to Malayo-Sumbawan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.170.249 ( talk) 04:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The lede suggestes that this grouping was proposed by Adelaar in 2005 and eventually rejected by the same Adelaar in 2019 — this is implied by saying that Adelaar «accepted both of these groupings» (i.e., apparently, the Greater North Borneo and Western Indonesian hypotheses, wich are incompatible with Malayo-Sumbawan, says here). Are there other proponents of Malayo-Sumbawan left, beside Adelaar? If not, this article should be rephrased to be presented as an abandoned hypothesis, and it should be expunged from language article’ cladograms and infobox “breadcrumbs”. Tuvalkin ( talk) 22:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't follow this reasoning. At least not in the context of an article titled "Malayo-Sumbawan languages". What the paragraph, taken for itself, seems to suggest is that Javanese does not belong to the Bali-Sasak group, which is admittedly unexpected on geographic grounds, and that the similarities are due to adstratum effects (specifically lexical borrowing, if the similarities are mainly lexical, as the comparison with English and French seems to suggest). However, Madurese and Malay are also listed as Malayo-Sumbawan languages here. Wouldn't this state of affairs (if Malayo-Sumbawan is a valid genetic unit and the situation described appropriately here) suggest that Javanese is also part of Malayo-Sumbawan? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Using another comparison, this sounds like a hypothetical argument that Danish cannot be a Germanic language because while its "refined" vocabulary resembles German and English, the basic language is much more similar to Icelandic – what this demonstrates is merely that Danish is not a West Germanic language, of course. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it the paragraph needs to be rewritten. The real message is Balinese and Sasak languages appears more similar to Javanese only with regard to 'high' registers, but are actually more similar to Madurese and Malay with regard to 'low' registers. Since 'low' register is regarded as the true basic form of a language, it can be concluded that Balinese and Sasak languages are actually close to Malay & Madurese, hence belongs to Malayo-Sumbawan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.170.249 ( talk) 04:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The lede suggestes that this grouping was proposed by Adelaar in 2005 and eventually rejected by the same Adelaar in 2019 — this is implied by saying that Adelaar «accepted both of these groupings» (i.e., apparently, the Greater North Borneo and Western Indonesian hypotheses, wich are incompatible with Malayo-Sumbawan, says here). Are there other proponents of Malayo-Sumbawan left, beside Adelaar? If not, this article should be rephrased to be presented as an abandoned hypothesis, and it should be expunged from language article’ cladograms and infobox “breadcrumbs”. Tuvalkin ( talk) 22:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)