|
|||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Linguistics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | Linguistics Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Linguistics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 21 January 2013. |
![]() |
WikiProject Linguistics |
---|
Task forces |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to the talk page for WikiProject Linguistics. This is the hub of the Wikipedian linguist community; like the coffee machine in the office, this page is where people get together, share news, and discuss what they are doing. Feel free to ask questions, make suggestions, and keep everyone updated on your progress. New talk goes at the bottom, and remember to sign and date your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~
). Thanks!
See
[1]: An anon is putting various words in ALL-CAPS (misusing {{
sc2}}
in the form {{
sc2|FOOT}}
which simply outputs regular all-caps not small caps), insists this is proper for "keywords for lexical sets", and claims that this is how they "are generally represented ... across Wikipedia", yet I have never encountered this before here, and it is not to be found in
MOS:ALLCAPS or any other guideline I'm aware of. The anon seems to want to do this for any word containing a sound that is under discussion in the article, such as the ʊ in foot, to be rendered FOOT. I can't see any rationale for doing that instead of just writing foot. If there's a good reason to do it after all, then it needs to be accounted for at MOS:ALLCAPS. However, it seems to conflict with a specialized linguistic use already codified there:
* In linguistics and philology, glossing of text or speech uses small caps for the standardized abbreviations of functional morpheme types (e.g. PL, AUX) ....
The only thing like this I'm finding elsewhere on-site is at Help:IPA/English, where it has been done seemingly to random words, then veering back into lower-case, e.g.:
ɔː — THOUGHT, audacious, caught
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
sc2|GOOSE}}
seems to serve no purpose at all, since it renders and copy-pastes the same as just typing GOOSE without a template. If we're certain we want to render lexical sets in all-caps, then this should be accounted for at
MOS:ALLCAPS. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
01:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
some people write a lexical set this way— everyone writes the keyword to lexical sets in small caps (or all caps if there are typological limitations). The IP editor and I have both provided a few of the many Wikipedia pages already doing this, because the sources used for writing the articles also do this because everyone who refers to keywords for lexical sets does so in capital letters. See myriad sources noting this explicitly if you search Wells lexical sets "small caps" in Google Books.
Words written in capitals
Throughout the work, use is made of the concept of standard lexical sets. These enable one to refer concisely to large groups of words which tend to share the same vowel, and to the vowel which they share. They are based on the vowel correspondences which apply between British Received Pronunciation and (a variety of) General American, and make use of keywords intended to be unmistakable no matter what accent one says them in. Thus 'the KIT words' refers to 'ship, bridge, milk . . .'; 'the KIT vowel' refers to the vowel these words have (in most accents, /ɪ/); both may just be referred to as KIT.
PS: In the same MoS section is an HTML comment reading: This next part does not appear to actually be applicable on Wikipedia; will get clarification from WT:LINGUISTICS: Transcription of
logograms (as opposed to
phonograms) can also be done with small caps or all caps.
Not really sure what to do with this. Is there anything Wikipedia-important that needs to be accounted for here? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Dalley speculates whether gišṭû (GEŠ.DA) is to be distinguished from the Sumerogram GEŠ.ZU, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History doi: 10.1515/janeh-2023-0010
BARA2-mar is an alternative spelling of BARA2.DUMU, Journal of Cuneiform Studies doi: 10.1086/725217
The original writing is dPA4.SIG7.NUN.ME = disimu4(-d). In this NUN.ME is a semantic marker, which had no consequences for the pronunciation, IRAQ doi: 10.1017/irq.2022.7
In unilingual Sumerian contexts, Sumerian words are normally written in lower case roman letters. Upper case (capital) letters (CAPS) are used:
- When the exact meaning of a sign is unknown or unclear. Many signs are polyvalent, that is, they have more than one value or reading. When the particular reading of a sign is in doubt, one may indicate this doubt by choosing its most common value and writing this in CAPS. For example, in the sentence KA-ĝu10 ma-gig 'My KA hurts me' a body part is intended. But the KA sign can be read ka 'mouth', kìri 'nose' or zú 'tooth', and the exact part of the face might not be clear from the context. By writing KA one clearly identifies the sign to the reader without committing oneself to any of its specific readings.
- When the exact pronunciation of a sign is unknown or unclear. For example, in the phrase a-SIS 'brackish water', the pronunciation of the second sign is still not completely clear: ses, or sis? Rather than commit oneself to a possibly incorrect choice, CAPS can be used to tell the reader that the choice is being left open.
- When one wishes to identify a non-standard or "x"-value of a sign. In this case, the x-value is immediately followed by a known standard value of the sign in CAPS placed within parentheses, for example dax(Á) ‘side’.
- When one wishes to spell out the components of a compound logogram, for example énsi(PA.TE.SI) 'governor' or ugnim(KI.KUŠ.LU.ÚB.ĜAR) 'army'.
- When referring to a sign in the abstract, as in “the ŠU sign is the picture of a hand.”
Prostitution#Etymology_and_terminology I noticed the section here and thought that going from the proto-german *hōrōn to PIE *keh₂- and thought it strange, and decided to take a look over on our sister site for a source, and while not finding one, suggests a missing link between the two was another PIE word, *kéh₂ros, which i can see the connection better if it can be sourced. Anyone more familiar with sourcing etymology taking a look into this would be lovely. Akaibu ( talk) 15:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It appears that the Commons images used in Yugtun script among other articles are mislabeled, but I can't figure out at all from the christusrex source which script image corresponds to which language/dialect, which script, and which script inventor -- each of which may have their own article and each of which may be scrambled. (It also used in ru:Эскимосская_письменность among others -- that page seems to have a better organization of how some of the scripts coordinate to dialects.) Someone who has the willingness to take the time to take a couple hours' dive into (or has background already of) the differences of several Eskimo dialects + phonetics, scripts, and transcriptions -- their efforts on this would be appreciated.
[Addendum:] I'd also appreciate ideas on how to verify the photo of Uyaquq /(Uyaqoq?) on Rovenchak 2011 (p. 8), which unfortunately seems like a very cruddy article. (That said, it passes WP:V and a very-most superficial reading of WP:RS, so it'd only be a matter of licensure to get the photo, else one could just link to it. However, I think it'd be irresponsible if we didn't try to independently verify ourselves.) SamuelRiv ( talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Contact the author with comments or to request a full set of bibliographic references/footnoted article, that Yahoo email address was also used as the contact for doi: 10.2307/1357795, I found her LinkedIn page which lists that BASOR article and provides her personal website with a different, but available email address. I'm not sure how much I can spell out directly, but it might be worth emailing her to ask if they recall where she got the image of Uyaquk from? Umimmak ( talk) 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
In the following guides, there are issues with multiple symbols (listed like ⟨◌ ~ ◌⟩, ⟨◌, ◌⟩ or ⟨◌ or ◌⟩, or as multiple symbols in multiple rows in the table), most likely denoting free variation. In other cases, it looks like a dialectal variation is described, but without specifying the dialects. Either way, it defeats the purpose of those guides, we need either to choose one symbol and stick to it or, possibly, separate the entries and list the allophones separately (assuming there is no (or little) free variation involved) or simply specify which allophones occur in which dialects. Either way, all instances of ⟨◌ ~ ◌⟩ etc. need to be fixed.
The following guides are affected:
Also, Help:IPA/Hmong lists loads of consonant clusters which are clearly not single segments. Sol505000 ( talk) 20:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers.It means that those conventions must be established, i.e. the transcriber (as well as the reader, which goes without saying) must know which symbol is used in which environment. This follows the practice of all pronunciation dictionaries and most books on linguistics I'm aware of (and even if it didn't, our MOS takes precedence anyway). Sol505000 ( talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Me and @ Phlsph7 had a brief discussion regarding this diagram, which seems to be useful in the broadest sense but is also more erroneous than it has to be. Obviously, each of these fields is not neatly contained, but that is not a problem in itself in my mind, that's the nature of science. While phone → phoneme → morpheme, word → phrase, sentence at the very least is "true enough" for a visual aid, what is the direct analogy between syntax and semantics? In what sense is the Syntax–semantics interface expressed as one being contained by the other?
Also, I believe non- phonocentric approaches should be more represented if possible.
I think this sort of diagram is obviously appealing, but it needs another look. It is used on many important linguistics articles, so I think we seriously should consider redesigning or replacing it. Remsense 诉 14:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vyaz (Cyrillic calligraphy)#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 11:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar dialect#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering ( talk) 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
at Talk:Optimality Theory that may be of interest to this project. Primergrey ( talk) 01:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this template, which may be of interest to the project, and we would be interested in guaging your views about whether this template is still needed, and if so, how we can preserve the functionality while making it work better with the assessment process. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Angle brackets ⟨<>⟩ are conventional to denote the historical evolution of objects of study in linguistics, of course. However—for technical reasons, linters and other tools like to complain about "unpaired angle brackets", among other concerns, since they're heavily used in HTML and WP:Wikitext. Would it be explicitly acceptable to use an arrow ⟨→⟩ where one would normally use an angle bracket, or is this too much of a novelty? Remsense 诉 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This could use some input from experts. S0091 ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TACL#Requested move 12 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Linguistic anthropology § Linguistic anthropology vs Anthropological linguistics that might be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The discussion concerns whether these two articles should be merged (although it is not—yet—a formal merger discussion as such), or if not, how to clean up the articles, which are problematic in a number of ways. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 12:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have seen various talk pages that are part of this WikiProject have a parameter in their declaration of {{
WikiProject Linguistics}} that looks like [name of task force]-importance
, e.g. applied-importance
, etymology-importance
, etc. However I don't actually see documentation for such parameters on the template page, and it seems to throw a warning in the preview (e.g. Preview warning: Page using
Template:WikiProject Linguistics with unexpected parameter "etymology-importance"
).
Why are these parameters seemingly used on so many pages? Are they really supported or not? Thanks in advance. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback at WT:WikiProject Languages#Digital extinction of language would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see the Nonfinite verb RfD discussion and comment accordingly re prospective next steps. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that phrases on Wikipedia often need work and are caught in limbo between WikiProjects. I am considering starting a Phases Wikiproject, but I want to make sure that it isn't within the scope of this WikiProject but often missed. Phrases aren't covered by this or other WikiProjects, right? I can do stuff! ( talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
It's at Talk:Pied-Noir#Lowercase. Thanks Elinruby ( talk) 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I hope by bringing this topic to the attention of people with linguistic knowledge I am doing the right thing.
Currently the article List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest – in my opinion at the very least a linguistics-adjacent topic – identifies three songs as having been sung in an "imaginary language". I think the articles on the individual songs do likewise, but I have not checked yet.
I may well be mistaken, but "imaginary language" does not sound like the proper term to me. I think the more accurate term would be (some sub-category of?) Conlang.
However, there are some popular press articles that use the "imaginary language" terminology. Should we follow what a non-specialist source says over the correct terminology? If so, when and when not?
I hope that you will be able to tell me whether I a wrong and thank you in advance for your help in hopefully clearing this up. 2001:A62:1514:6A02:4CE8:A2CC:ACB2:2E38 ( talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I seem to have waded into a minefield by restoring six example sentences at Franglais. They were deleted last year and again after I restored them as "unsourced" and "original research". I don't think they're research at all, and don't require sources as simple examples of something that's just been defined and cited to reliable sources. But another editor is equally certain that they are, and do. What we need now is other editors to weigh in and give opinions as to whether usage examples need to be cited to anything, or constitute "original research". This seemed like a reasonable place to ask. P Aculeius ( talk) 23:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I think that Linguistic monogenesis and Linguistic polygenesis could be merged into the article I translated, like in [5] Spanish, [6] Catalan, [7] Galician and [8] Dutch. They're about similar topics and having an article about linguistic polygenesis would give it undue weight, because the mainstream scholars advocate for monogenesis (see [9], a paper defending linguistic polygenesis but starts with the line "Monogenesis of language is widely accepted..."). Is this a good idea? Pcg111 ( talk) 08:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone interested in linguistics please look into Talk:One Standard German Axiom and give their opinion. -- Rießler ( talk) 05:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding the IPA transcription of 'Vaush' here which may be of intrest to some of yous. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sino-Xenic pronunciations#Requested move 14 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The audio for IPA [e] is a diphthong and in my opinion should be replaced as there is a superior recording freely available on Wikimedia Commons. Discussion here. Stockhausenfan ( talk) 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Please, could someone help to expand Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis (for more context, see this)? Pcg111 ( talk) 10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently nominated a page I created for GA status and forgot to mention it here in case anyone wanted to review. I invite anyone interested in historical linguistics in general and PIE in particular, as it deals with phonological change in PIE. Let me know what you think! ThaesOfereode ( talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indo-European ablaut#Requested move 16 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 诉 20:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
He has been uploading sound files as illustrations for various exotic sounds. I ran across his recording at Voiceless alveolar tap and flap and I really don't think that what he is pronouncing there is a voiceless alveolar tap or flap (if you are wondering why, you can see my more specific comment on the talk page of that article). As I look through his other uploads ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Voiceless_velar_nasal.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_velar_trill.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_palatal_nasal.ogg), I find many of them unconvincing, too (again, I've left comments on their discussion pages, in case someone is wondering what I don't like about them). I feel far from equipped to judge all of his uploads, as many of the sounds are rather obscure, but my impressions from the ones I can judge with some degree of certainty don't make me very confident about the ones I can't. It looks to me as if he simply overestimates his pronunciation skills - both his ability to control what his speech organs are doing and his ability to correctly categorise by ear the sounds that he ends up producing. This results essentially in misinformation. I am not sure by what procedure such a problem is supposed to be solved on Wikipedia - there is no way to apply the verifiability policy in such a case, so I suppose that it's just something to be solved through consensus. I am just leaving this note for you people who are more involved in the phonetics articles on Wikipedia and I hope you can work out how to react to such a situation. 62.73.69.121 ( talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that Blowing in from Chicago be moved to Blowing In from Chicago, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Graham ( talk) 05:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have started a
new discussion at the Technical Village Pump about developing the functionality for cross-referenceable running example numbers. The idea being that Wikipedia could have a system sort of like sort of \ex
, \label{}
, and \ref{}
in LaTeX. I know the absence of this feature has been an annoyance for editors in this topic area for quite some time, so I thought I would link the discussion here in case anybody wanted to chime in.
Botterweg14
(talk)
18:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc|lang|style}}
Single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate phonemes. Our transcription system for English (cf. Help:IPA/English, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation) does not use phonemes, but diaphonemes. Nonetheless, we are enclosing the transcriptions in single slashes (mainly through {{ IPAc-en}}, e.g. /ˈwʊstər/). This non-standard use of single slashes confuses readers and editors alike and regularly leads to disputes, for instance the recent edit war in Richard D'Oyly Carte.
What could we do?
This request for comment is a follow-up to the recent bold replacement of the single slashes by the DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR ⫽. It was soon reverted after protest on Template talk:IPAc-en#What's with the double slashes? There had been a previous consensus on this page to use double slashes, cf. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation/Archive 11#Distinction between varieties of English. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Our transcription system for English ( H:IPAE) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its diaphonemic transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are phonemic. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
more permissive? (Perhaps an example or two could be helpful.) Wolfdog ( talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from: I believe there is. It is a distinction between the meaning we intend to communicate on the sender side (‘these are diaphonemes’) and the meaning a linguistically informed reader will understand on the receiver side (‘these are phonemes’). When a reader misunderstands the single slashes to mean ‘these are phonemes’, it is not their fault on the receiver side – ‘these are phonemes’ is the well-established meaning of single slashes. Instead, it is our fault on the sender side – we should have chosen a different delimiter that does not convey the meaning ‘these are phonemes’. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
[T]hey will still object and the response will still have to be "Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic system […]."I believe the benefit of using double slashes would be that they could no longer answer with a big “but Wikipedia explicitly indicates that the transcriptions are phonemic by enclosing them in single slashes.” -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects, the text is merely talking about the symbols and how they're commonly used to represent a certain phoneme (across a variety of dictionaries, for instance). Wolfdog ( talk) 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
(In a perfect world, I would post this on WikiProject Writing systems, but I'll just drop a redirect there instead.)
Here are the most important articles about writing, by my estimation: Writing, Literacy, Writing system, History of writing, Written language. Grapheme, Glyph.
While the existence of
Writing system has likely kept others over the last 20 years from asking this question, I think we need to sort out a proper article for "the study of writing systems". There are presently two underdeveloped articles that seem to be coterminous in having this scope:
Graphemics and
Grammatology. From everything I've read, if we are to decide what name to use, these two plus
Grapholinguistics are our viable options for an article title.
Disregarding site policy, "grapholinguistics" is my clear personal preference: it is a fairly new term—though there seems to be considerable recent work advocating and employing it, though much of it in German (Schriftlinguistik). Sadly for me and my cause, If we go purely by ngrams
it doesn't even chart—again, this would seem to be biased against post-2019 work using "grapholinguistics", but it's still a tough case for me to make. Even so, I think I'd have to argue it'd be the best, most natural and recognizable for readers—"graphemics" may not reliably indicate a scope wide or narrow like "writing"; "grammatology" will make most think of grammar, and a smaller minority think mostly of Derrida. But I really just want a clear mandate one way or another.
Remsense
诉
08:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Study of writing systems
References
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Linguistics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | Linguistics Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Linguistics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 21 January 2013. |
![]() |
WikiProject Linguistics |
---|
Task forces |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to the talk page for WikiProject Linguistics. This is the hub of the Wikipedian linguist community; like the coffee machine in the office, this page is where people get together, share news, and discuss what they are doing. Feel free to ask questions, make suggestions, and keep everyone updated on your progress. New talk goes at the bottom, and remember to sign and date your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~
). Thanks!
See
[1]: An anon is putting various words in ALL-CAPS (misusing {{
sc2}}
in the form {{
sc2|FOOT}}
which simply outputs regular all-caps not small caps), insists this is proper for "keywords for lexical sets", and claims that this is how they "are generally represented ... across Wikipedia", yet I have never encountered this before here, and it is not to be found in
MOS:ALLCAPS or any other guideline I'm aware of. The anon seems to want to do this for any word containing a sound that is under discussion in the article, such as the ʊ in foot, to be rendered FOOT. I can't see any rationale for doing that instead of just writing foot. If there's a good reason to do it after all, then it needs to be accounted for at MOS:ALLCAPS. However, it seems to conflict with a specialized linguistic use already codified there:
* In linguistics and philology, glossing of text or speech uses small caps for the standardized abbreviations of functional morpheme types (e.g. PL, AUX) ....
The only thing like this I'm finding elsewhere on-site is at Help:IPA/English, where it has been done seemingly to random words, then veering back into lower-case, e.g.:
ɔː — THOUGHT, audacious, caught
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
sc2|GOOSE}}
seems to serve no purpose at all, since it renders and copy-pastes the same as just typing GOOSE without a template. If we're certain we want to render lexical sets in all-caps, then this should be accounted for at
MOS:ALLCAPS. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
01:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
some people write a lexical set this way— everyone writes the keyword to lexical sets in small caps (or all caps if there are typological limitations). The IP editor and I have both provided a few of the many Wikipedia pages already doing this, because the sources used for writing the articles also do this because everyone who refers to keywords for lexical sets does so in capital letters. See myriad sources noting this explicitly if you search Wells lexical sets "small caps" in Google Books.
Words written in capitals
Throughout the work, use is made of the concept of standard lexical sets. These enable one to refer concisely to large groups of words which tend to share the same vowel, and to the vowel which they share. They are based on the vowel correspondences which apply between British Received Pronunciation and (a variety of) General American, and make use of keywords intended to be unmistakable no matter what accent one says them in. Thus 'the KIT words' refers to 'ship, bridge, milk . . .'; 'the KIT vowel' refers to the vowel these words have (in most accents, /ɪ/); both may just be referred to as KIT.
PS: In the same MoS section is an HTML comment reading: This next part does not appear to actually be applicable on Wikipedia; will get clarification from WT:LINGUISTICS: Transcription of
logograms (as opposed to
phonograms) can also be done with small caps or all caps.
Not really sure what to do with this. Is there anything Wikipedia-important that needs to be accounted for here? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Dalley speculates whether gišṭû (GEŠ.DA) is to be distinguished from the Sumerogram GEŠ.ZU, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History doi: 10.1515/janeh-2023-0010
BARA2-mar is an alternative spelling of BARA2.DUMU, Journal of Cuneiform Studies doi: 10.1086/725217
The original writing is dPA4.SIG7.NUN.ME = disimu4(-d). In this NUN.ME is a semantic marker, which had no consequences for the pronunciation, IRAQ doi: 10.1017/irq.2022.7
In unilingual Sumerian contexts, Sumerian words are normally written in lower case roman letters. Upper case (capital) letters (CAPS) are used:
- When the exact meaning of a sign is unknown or unclear. Many signs are polyvalent, that is, they have more than one value or reading. When the particular reading of a sign is in doubt, one may indicate this doubt by choosing its most common value and writing this in CAPS. For example, in the sentence KA-ĝu10 ma-gig 'My KA hurts me' a body part is intended. But the KA sign can be read ka 'mouth', kìri 'nose' or zú 'tooth', and the exact part of the face might not be clear from the context. By writing KA one clearly identifies the sign to the reader without committing oneself to any of its specific readings.
- When the exact pronunciation of a sign is unknown or unclear. For example, in the phrase a-SIS 'brackish water', the pronunciation of the second sign is still not completely clear: ses, or sis? Rather than commit oneself to a possibly incorrect choice, CAPS can be used to tell the reader that the choice is being left open.
- When one wishes to identify a non-standard or "x"-value of a sign. In this case, the x-value is immediately followed by a known standard value of the sign in CAPS placed within parentheses, for example dax(Á) ‘side’.
- When one wishes to spell out the components of a compound logogram, for example énsi(PA.TE.SI) 'governor' or ugnim(KI.KUŠ.LU.ÚB.ĜAR) 'army'.
- When referring to a sign in the abstract, as in “the ŠU sign is the picture of a hand.”
Prostitution#Etymology_and_terminology I noticed the section here and thought that going from the proto-german *hōrōn to PIE *keh₂- and thought it strange, and decided to take a look over on our sister site for a source, and while not finding one, suggests a missing link between the two was another PIE word, *kéh₂ros, which i can see the connection better if it can be sourced. Anyone more familiar with sourcing etymology taking a look into this would be lovely. Akaibu ( talk) 15:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It appears that the Commons images used in Yugtun script among other articles are mislabeled, but I can't figure out at all from the christusrex source which script image corresponds to which language/dialect, which script, and which script inventor -- each of which may have their own article and each of which may be scrambled. (It also used in ru:Эскимосская_письменность among others -- that page seems to have a better organization of how some of the scripts coordinate to dialects.) Someone who has the willingness to take the time to take a couple hours' dive into (or has background already of) the differences of several Eskimo dialects + phonetics, scripts, and transcriptions -- their efforts on this would be appreciated.
[Addendum:] I'd also appreciate ideas on how to verify the photo of Uyaquq /(Uyaqoq?) on Rovenchak 2011 (p. 8), which unfortunately seems like a very cruddy article. (That said, it passes WP:V and a very-most superficial reading of WP:RS, so it'd only be a matter of licensure to get the photo, else one could just link to it. However, I think it'd be irresponsible if we didn't try to independently verify ourselves.) SamuelRiv ( talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Contact the author with comments or to request a full set of bibliographic references/footnoted article, that Yahoo email address was also used as the contact for doi: 10.2307/1357795, I found her LinkedIn page which lists that BASOR article and provides her personal website with a different, but available email address. I'm not sure how much I can spell out directly, but it might be worth emailing her to ask if they recall where she got the image of Uyaquk from? Umimmak ( talk) 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
In the following guides, there are issues with multiple symbols (listed like ⟨◌ ~ ◌⟩, ⟨◌, ◌⟩ or ⟨◌ or ◌⟩, or as multiple symbols in multiple rows in the table), most likely denoting free variation. In other cases, it looks like a dialectal variation is described, but without specifying the dialects. Either way, it defeats the purpose of those guides, we need either to choose one symbol and stick to it or, possibly, separate the entries and list the allophones separately (assuming there is no (or little) free variation involved) or simply specify which allophones occur in which dialects. Either way, all instances of ⟨◌ ~ ◌⟩ etc. need to be fixed.
The following guides are affected:
Also, Help:IPA/Hmong lists loads of consonant clusters which are clearly not single segments. Sol505000 ( talk) 20:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers.It means that those conventions must be established, i.e. the transcriber (as well as the reader, which goes without saying) must know which symbol is used in which environment. This follows the practice of all pronunciation dictionaries and most books on linguistics I'm aware of (and even if it didn't, our MOS takes precedence anyway). Sol505000 ( talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Me and @ Phlsph7 had a brief discussion regarding this diagram, which seems to be useful in the broadest sense but is also more erroneous than it has to be. Obviously, each of these fields is not neatly contained, but that is not a problem in itself in my mind, that's the nature of science. While phone → phoneme → morpheme, word → phrase, sentence at the very least is "true enough" for a visual aid, what is the direct analogy between syntax and semantics? In what sense is the Syntax–semantics interface expressed as one being contained by the other?
Also, I believe non- phonocentric approaches should be more represented if possible.
I think this sort of diagram is obviously appealing, but it needs another look. It is used on many important linguistics articles, so I think we seriously should consider redesigning or replacing it. Remsense 诉 14:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vyaz (Cyrillic calligraphy)#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 11:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar dialect#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering ( talk) 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
at Talk:Optimality Theory that may be of interest to this project. Primergrey ( talk) 01:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this template, which may be of interest to the project, and we would be interested in guaging your views about whether this template is still needed, and if so, how we can preserve the functionality while making it work better with the assessment process. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Angle brackets ⟨<>⟩ are conventional to denote the historical evolution of objects of study in linguistics, of course. However—for technical reasons, linters and other tools like to complain about "unpaired angle brackets", among other concerns, since they're heavily used in HTML and WP:Wikitext. Would it be explicitly acceptable to use an arrow ⟨→⟩ where one would normally use an angle bracket, or is this too much of a novelty? Remsense 诉 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This could use some input from experts. S0091 ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TACL#Requested move 12 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Linguistic anthropology § Linguistic anthropology vs Anthropological linguistics that might be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The discussion concerns whether these two articles should be merged (although it is not—yet—a formal merger discussion as such), or if not, how to clean up the articles, which are problematic in a number of ways. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 12:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have seen various talk pages that are part of this WikiProject have a parameter in their declaration of {{
WikiProject Linguistics}} that looks like [name of task force]-importance
, e.g. applied-importance
, etymology-importance
, etc. However I don't actually see documentation for such parameters on the template page, and it seems to throw a warning in the preview (e.g. Preview warning: Page using
Template:WikiProject Linguistics with unexpected parameter "etymology-importance"
).
Why are these parameters seemingly used on so many pages? Are they really supported or not? Thanks in advance. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback at WT:WikiProject Languages#Digital extinction of language would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see the Nonfinite verb RfD discussion and comment accordingly re prospective next steps. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that phrases on Wikipedia often need work and are caught in limbo between WikiProjects. I am considering starting a Phases Wikiproject, but I want to make sure that it isn't within the scope of this WikiProject but often missed. Phrases aren't covered by this or other WikiProjects, right? I can do stuff! ( talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
It's at Talk:Pied-Noir#Lowercase. Thanks Elinruby ( talk) 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I hope by bringing this topic to the attention of people with linguistic knowledge I am doing the right thing.
Currently the article List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest – in my opinion at the very least a linguistics-adjacent topic – identifies three songs as having been sung in an "imaginary language". I think the articles on the individual songs do likewise, but I have not checked yet.
I may well be mistaken, but "imaginary language" does not sound like the proper term to me. I think the more accurate term would be (some sub-category of?) Conlang.
However, there are some popular press articles that use the "imaginary language" terminology. Should we follow what a non-specialist source says over the correct terminology? If so, when and when not?
I hope that you will be able to tell me whether I a wrong and thank you in advance for your help in hopefully clearing this up. 2001:A62:1514:6A02:4CE8:A2CC:ACB2:2E38 ( talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I seem to have waded into a minefield by restoring six example sentences at Franglais. They were deleted last year and again after I restored them as "unsourced" and "original research". I don't think they're research at all, and don't require sources as simple examples of something that's just been defined and cited to reliable sources. But another editor is equally certain that they are, and do. What we need now is other editors to weigh in and give opinions as to whether usage examples need to be cited to anything, or constitute "original research". This seemed like a reasonable place to ask. P Aculeius ( talk) 23:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I think that Linguistic monogenesis and Linguistic polygenesis could be merged into the article I translated, like in [5] Spanish, [6] Catalan, [7] Galician and [8] Dutch. They're about similar topics and having an article about linguistic polygenesis would give it undue weight, because the mainstream scholars advocate for monogenesis (see [9], a paper defending linguistic polygenesis but starts with the line "Monogenesis of language is widely accepted..."). Is this a good idea? Pcg111 ( talk) 08:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone interested in linguistics please look into Talk:One Standard German Axiom and give their opinion. -- Rießler ( talk) 05:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding the IPA transcription of 'Vaush' here which may be of intrest to some of yous. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sino-Xenic pronunciations#Requested move 14 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The audio for IPA [e] is a diphthong and in my opinion should be replaced as there is a superior recording freely available on Wikimedia Commons. Discussion here. Stockhausenfan ( talk) 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Please, could someone help to expand Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis (for more context, see this)? Pcg111 ( talk) 10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently nominated a page I created for GA status and forgot to mention it here in case anyone wanted to review. I invite anyone interested in historical linguistics in general and PIE in particular, as it deals with phonological change in PIE. Let me know what you think! ThaesOfereode ( talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indo-European ablaut#Requested move 16 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 诉 20:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
He has been uploading sound files as illustrations for various exotic sounds. I ran across his recording at Voiceless alveolar tap and flap and I really don't think that what he is pronouncing there is a voiceless alveolar tap or flap (if you are wondering why, you can see my more specific comment on the talk page of that article). As I look through his other uploads ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Voiceless_velar_nasal.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_velar_trill.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_palatal_nasal.ogg), I find many of them unconvincing, too (again, I've left comments on their discussion pages, in case someone is wondering what I don't like about them). I feel far from equipped to judge all of his uploads, as many of the sounds are rather obscure, but my impressions from the ones I can judge with some degree of certainty don't make me very confident about the ones I can't. It looks to me as if he simply overestimates his pronunciation skills - both his ability to control what his speech organs are doing and his ability to correctly categorise by ear the sounds that he ends up producing. This results essentially in misinformation. I am not sure by what procedure such a problem is supposed to be solved on Wikipedia - there is no way to apply the verifiability policy in such a case, so I suppose that it's just something to be solved through consensus. I am just leaving this note for you people who are more involved in the phonetics articles on Wikipedia and I hope you can work out how to react to such a situation. 62.73.69.121 ( talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that Blowing in from Chicago be moved to Blowing In from Chicago, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Graham ( talk) 05:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have started a
new discussion at the Technical Village Pump about developing the functionality for cross-referenceable running example numbers. The idea being that Wikipedia could have a system sort of like sort of \ex
, \label{}
, and \ref{}
in LaTeX. I know the absence of this feature has been an annoyance for editors in this topic area for quite some time, so I thought I would link the discussion here in case anybody wanted to chime in.
Botterweg14
(talk)
18:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc|lang|style}}
Single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate phonemes. Our transcription system for English (cf. Help:IPA/English, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation) does not use phonemes, but diaphonemes. Nonetheless, we are enclosing the transcriptions in single slashes (mainly through {{ IPAc-en}}, e.g. /ˈwʊstər/). This non-standard use of single slashes confuses readers and editors alike and regularly leads to disputes, for instance the recent edit war in Richard D'Oyly Carte.
What could we do?
This request for comment is a follow-up to the recent bold replacement of the single slashes by the DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR ⫽. It was soon reverted after protest on Template talk:IPAc-en#What's with the double slashes? There had been a previous consensus on this page to use double slashes, cf. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation/Archive 11#Distinction between varieties of English. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Our transcription system for English ( H:IPAE) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its diaphonemic transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are phonemic. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
more permissive? (Perhaps an example or two could be helpful.) Wolfdog ( talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from: I believe there is. It is a distinction between the meaning we intend to communicate on the sender side (‘these are diaphonemes’) and the meaning a linguistically informed reader will understand on the receiver side (‘these are phonemes’). When a reader misunderstands the single slashes to mean ‘these are phonemes’, it is not their fault on the receiver side – ‘these are phonemes’ is the well-established meaning of single slashes. Instead, it is our fault on the sender side – we should have chosen a different delimiter that does not convey the meaning ‘these are phonemes’. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
[T]hey will still object and the response will still have to be "Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic system […]."I believe the benefit of using double slashes would be that they could no longer answer with a big “but Wikipedia explicitly indicates that the transcriptions are phonemic by enclosing them in single slashes.” -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects, the text is merely talking about the symbols and how they're commonly used to represent a certain phoneme (across a variety of dictionaries, for instance). Wolfdog ( talk) 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
(In a perfect world, I would post this on WikiProject Writing systems, but I'll just drop a redirect there instead.)
Here are the most important articles about writing, by my estimation: Writing, Literacy, Writing system, History of writing, Written language. Grapheme, Glyph.
While the existence of
Writing system has likely kept others over the last 20 years from asking this question, I think we need to sort out a proper article for "the study of writing systems". There are presently two underdeveloped articles that seem to be coterminous in having this scope:
Graphemics and
Grammatology. From everything I've read, if we are to decide what name to use, these two plus
Grapholinguistics are our viable options for an article title.
Disregarding site policy, "grapholinguistics" is my clear personal preference: it is a fairly new term—though there seems to be considerable recent work advocating and employing it, though much of it in German (Schriftlinguistik). Sadly for me and my cause, If we go purely by ngrams
it doesn't even chart—again, this would seem to be biased against post-2019 work using "grapholinguistics", but it's still a tough case for me to make. Even so, I think I'd have to argue it'd be the best, most natural and recognizable for readers—"graphemics" may not reliably indicate a scope wide or narrow like "writing"; "grammatology" will make most think of grammar, and a smaller minority think mostly of Derrida. But I really just want a clear mandate one way or another.
Remsense
诉
08:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Study of writing systems
References