![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Morphological typology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jpd50616. Peer reviewers:
Jpd50616.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It would be nice to see where English is classified in the article, as anyone who is generally unfamiliar with linguistics (as I am) would then have some kind of basis for comparison.
It seems to me that only Indo-European languages are fusional. Most others seem to be agglutinating or isolating. Are there any other families with fusional tendencies?
I have trouble understanding this bit. I thought suprasegmentals were not lexically distinctive, and hence separable from all segments or groups of segments. -- Kjoon lee 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
...are not in this article. I would find it most helpful if someone added them. -- 124.170.35.1 09:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In this page, languages are divided in "analytic" and "synthetic" ones, but in the box on the right they're classified as "isolating" and "synthetic".
The correct classification should be:
Isolating languages are the only subset of analytic languages described on Wikipedia, and the page Analytic language redirects to Isolating language. But "isolating" is a kind of analytic"!
The fact that both the
Analytic language page and that the "Analytic" voice in the right box are missing can create some confusion.
I suggest to change "Isolating" with "Analytic" in the right box, and to create a short Analytic language page (in this case, "Isolating" can be indicated as a kind of "Analytic" in the right box).
-- Taekwondavide ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to put together a tentative list of the languages of the world with the linguistic features of each. It's a huge task and I don't have time to do it on my own. Please come here - User:Bienfuxia/List of languages by linguistic features - and help out a bit, when it's ready I can publish it as a proper article. This is one occasion where wiki is missing something substantive that it should have, please come along and do what you can! Bienfuxia ( talk) 07:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This article relies on the simplistic and now mostly abandoned typological classification of languages into morphological macrotypes such as analytic, isolating, polysynthetic etc. These are not really considered relevant typological categories by any linguists any more. The article should not be structured around these categories. I would recommend describing all of the traditional macrotypes in a single section. Also the only way that these types make sense is by classifying specific words or morphemes as using one or the other type. Noone classifies languages as "being" of X type anymore, since all languages include different types of morphology. WALS is cited as the exponent of this view, but WALS (which is produced by the worlds foremost typologists) is simply describing the actual consensus within linguistics. This is the viewpoint that should be the main viewpoint in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oligosynthesis is not and has never been seriously considered a morphological type. Giving it a section is a lot of undue weight. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This article should be based on the main linguistic literature about typology. Not willi-nilli picked publications. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Johanna Nichols concepts of dependent and headmarking morphology are also morphological types, of a more functional nature, and not based on Sapirs notion of the synthesis/fusion indexes. This distinction is more commonly used in contemporary morphological typology than the traditional macrotypes. It should be included. Whaley's introduction to typology has a good description of both Sapir and Nichols systems in chapter 8. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the translation that is marked with citation needed falls under you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Translations are obvious information, no matter how obscure the language (provided it is still alive). Amp2001 ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Morphological typology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jpd50616. Peer reviewers:
Jpd50616.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It would be nice to see where English is classified in the article, as anyone who is generally unfamiliar with linguistics (as I am) would then have some kind of basis for comparison.
It seems to me that only Indo-European languages are fusional. Most others seem to be agglutinating or isolating. Are there any other families with fusional tendencies?
I have trouble understanding this bit. I thought suprasegmentals were not lexically distinctive, and hence separable from all segments or groups of segments. -- Kjoon lee 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
...are not in this article. I would find it most helpful if someone added them. -- 124.170.35.1 09:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In this page, languages are divided in "analytic" and "synthetic" ones, but in the box on the right they're classified as "isolating" and "synthetic".
The correct classification should be:
Isolating languages are the only subset of analytic languages described on Wikipedia, and the page Analytic language redirects to Isolating language. But "isolating" is a kind of analytic"!
The fact that both the
Analytic language page and that the "Analytic" voice in the right box are missing can create some confusion.
I suggest to change "Isolating" with "Analytic" in the right box, and to create a short Analytic language page (in this case, "Isolating" can be indicated as a kind of "Analytic" in the right box).
-- Taekwondavide ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to put together a tentative list of the languages of the world with the linguistic features of each. It's a huge task and I don't have time to do it on my own. Please come here - User:Bienfuxia/List of languages by linguistic features - and help out a bit, when it's ready I can publish it as a proper article. This is one occasion where wiki is missing something substantive that it should have, please come along and do what you can! Bienfuxia ( talk) 07:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This article relies on the simplistic and now mostly abandoned typological classification of languages into morphological macrotypes such as analytic, isolating, polysynthetic etc. These are not really considered relevant typological categories by any linguists any more. The article should not be structured around these categories. I would recommend describing all of the traditional macrotypes in a single section. Also the only way that these types make sense is by classifying specific words or morphemes as using one or the other type. Noone classifies languages as "being" of X type anymore, since all languages include different types of morphology. WALS is cited as the exponent of this view, but WALS (which is produced by the worlds foremost typologists) is simply describing the actual consensus within linguistics. This is the viewpoint that should be the main viewpoint in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oligosynthesis is not and has never been seriously considered a morphological type. Giving it a section is a lot of undue weight. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This article should be based on the main linguistic literature about typology. Not willi-nilli picked publications. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Johanna Nichols concepts of dependent and headmarking morphology are also morphological types, of a more functional nature, and not based on Sapirs notion of the synthesis/fusion indexes. This distinction is more commonly used in contemporary morphological typology than the traditional macrotypes. It should be included. Whaley's introduction to typology has a good description of both Sapir and Nichols systems in chapter 8. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the translation that is marked with citation needed falls under you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Translations are obvious information, no matter how obscure the language (provided it is still alive). Amp2001 ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)