|
|||||||||||||||
|
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, 21Auto-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!
Kajkavian is currently being attacked by a nationalist edit warrior who keeps changing the classification of Shtokavian and Chakavian as Serbo-Croatian to an unscientific classification of them as "Croatian", which makes no sense and is clearly against the consensus. Sol505000 ( talk) 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
See
[3]: 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.”
Hi, folks! Hope you're doing well. Found this redirect, Linguistic elaboration, but the phrase doesn't show up and is not linked anywhere in Wikipedia. Thought I'd ask some knowledgeable Wikipedians because I don't want to take it to WP:RfD if it's easier to insert and wikilink the phrase somewhere and "rescue" it that way.
Details: the target article,
Abstand and ausbau languages, doesn't even have the string "elaborat" (the closest is langue par élaboration
).
Autonomy and heteronomy defines ausbau as the elaboration of a language to serve as a literary standard
;
Standard language mentions elaboration of function
(and defines Ausbau as further linguistic development
).
An extremely rushed Internet search has led me to "linguistic elaboration" as a translation of sprachlicher Ausbau, a concept introduced by Kloss (1929) and popularized by Haugen (1966)
.
[1]
tl;dr what should I do? a) take the "Linguistic elaboration" redirect to RfD or b) find some way of mentioning or wikilinking the phrase in existing articles? Thanks in advanced for reading and for any input!
References
Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Harold Innis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialization (linguistics) has been relisted three times but has received minimal participation. If you have ideas about the article, please consider commenting. Cnilep ( talk) 03:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
If anyone here is interested in this discussion, it can be found at Talk:Romance languages#Representation of Classical Latin–Vulgar Latin split in infobox? Arctic Circle System ( talk) 09:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
More than a month ago, I opened a discussion in Talk:Synthetic language#Fusional and agglutinating languages, about a number of changes by a single editor in Synthetic language, changes that I found flawed. There's been no reply so far. Please help, any comment is welcome. Jotamar ( talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This article, terribly Anglocentric until 27 February 2015, is still somewhat lacking a global viewpoint. The recording since 27 February 2015 may be somehow called an "alveolar approximant" but anyone who read
John Wells
[1] uses the detailed transcriptions ⟨sz̞ᵚ⟩ for si
and The
Nuosu language has two similar "buzzed" vowels that are described as syllabic fricatives, [β̩, ɹ̝̍
citation needed.
from
apical vowel, an article itself is also problematic and labelled by me, would find the two alveolar approximant totally different, much more different than the recording of the alveolar approximant and of the postalveolar approximant.
I initiated a discussion after the thread of a German IP: Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants#Two symbols; only one explained. However, given the fact that the exact nature of the stereotypical "rhoticized alveolar" approximant (such as the recording) as opposed to plain alveolar approximant is not at all well-studied, it is unlikely to give a wellsourced scientifical definition in Wikipedia. However, the writing of Wikipedia should not work against common sense, when the ears of a billion people can notice the difference of the sound it is no longer a minor difference but a phonemical difference or at least a difference of potentially phonemical importance. I have basically stopped actively pushing the idea of separation of the two sounds but the writing style of that article should be changed. Ten years ago when I first read that article I found it absurd because no matter how hard I try I cannot articulate any sound that is remotely similar to the English sometimes alveolar sometimes postalveolar approximant, and always get a acoustically non-rhoticized sound - this is not what Wikipedia intends to do. I no longer actively push the idea not only because the topic is itself not well-studied but treated like an elephant in the room by people in the circle, but also because I myself cannot give an accurately describe all ways to make an alveolar approximant rhotacized (what I can say is, when one keeps one's tongue flat except for the articulation point it's a plain sound while when one's tongue is relaxed and curled somewhere other than the articulation point, or sulcalized, etc. it tends to produce a rhotacized sound acoustically not very different from a postalveolar approximant) and I do not want to give any original research or even misstatements (I might already did by saying Huashan Mandarin has two oral alveolar approximants phonemically but they seem to be only semi-phonemically different). It is much easier to say the difference is not something than is something: I can seriously tell that Sol505000's idea that the Dahalo and English difference is apical/laminal difference or the difference between alveolar this way and postalveolar were wrong and original research, but I don't want to characterize it either (if someone can characterize this acoustic rhoticity by F3+ it's highly appreciated). Both Nardog and Sol505000 in the discussion are unfamiliar with the topic (Mandarin/Dahalo/Danish/Loloish phonology, thus outside that part of the academic circle) so I don't trust their opinion, and I don't trust myself either. So please if anyone in the circle can take part in that discussion I would appreciate that and may comfortably leave the talk. Note that the discussion were filled with unrelated wording-problem such as "rhotic". Here's the last version that distinguishes the rhoticized alveolar from plain alveolar approximant, where you can find the academic primary source that indicate the Huashan Mandarin to have two semi-phonemically distinct alveolar approximant:
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help), entry 安徽马鞍山花山霍里街道.(P.S. With the help of pronouncing a rhotic alveolar approximant as in the recording, I now can pronounce a strongly fricative alveolar or even dentialveolar sibilant, apical or laminal, that are acoustically not very different from a postalveolar/retroflex sibilant, but this may be entirely a different topic and may be just a strongly hushing dentialveolar.)
The separation of sounds dealt in the article is also ad hoc: I didn't see any source making a separation between apical postalveolar and apical retroflex approximants phonemically, I guess the only difference is how back your tongue curls but both Mandarin and English seemed to have the two adjacent approximants in free variation (some even argued that all Mandarin retroflex series are all merely postalveolar - tongue tip not going toward as back as palatal). Given the fact that when pronouncing an approximant your tongue doesn't touch the passive place of articulation, the difference between the two are even harder to define. However, Wikipedia has them in different articles anyway. On the other hand, Sol505000 ( talk · contribs) argued that dentialveolar approximant would be my original research, well I am not sure but I have seen some Chinese linguistic graduate student using "prealveolar approximant" [ɹ̟̍] in their blog to describe the Chinese flat-tongued apical vowel because the stereotypical rhotic alveolar approximant is acoustically too different from that apical vowel but sounds closer to retroflex apical vowel. Of course saying a dentialveolar approximant to have a passive place of articulation sharply at the edge between your teeth and your alveolar ridge is not possible, but I don't think use the term "dentialveolar approximant" to emphasize the sound to be neither close to interdental/front dental nor close to the Dahalo-like "alveolar tending toward post-alveolar" may cause any problems. I have no idea why Sol505000 considers the distinction between apical postalvelar and apical retroflex to be founded while dentialveolar to be unfounded, and I would promote the ExtIPA [ð͇˕] for Dahalo language apical-alveolar series instead of [ð̠˕] because the current usage of [t̠] and [d̠] in Dahalo language is not quite accurate. 146.96.28.10 ( talk) 02:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I have also included many well-sourced examples of Sinitic languages, which are reverted by Sol505000 without explanation. Nardog once had some problem with it but they no longer opposes that. My point is, if the article apical vowel describes the these vowels in three controversial ways, these examples should be listed as examples in all three articles rather than neither. Similar treatment should be done with the Mandarin final nasal approximants (like the Burmese one), such as Tian'anmen (tʰjɛ́͢ð̠̃˕.á͢ð̠̃˕.mə̌͢ð̠̃˕): if Mandarin phonology describes it in some way, it deserves to be mentioned as an example in corresponding articles. The awkward treatment of apical vowel and the IPA rejection of Sinologist IPA shouldn't be used as a tool to intentionally ignore the existance of these sounds in Mandarin (I personally find it very discriminative to assign Swedish ɧ an IPA symbol but the Chinese ones and Danish ones rejected). The latest version with these example but without the controversial rhotacized/plain difference is here. -- 146.96.28.10 ( talk) 04:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Austronesier and I can't achieve consensus on our last discussion on the talk page. I'd like a third opinion. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 12:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Proverb#Adage needs to stop redirecting here. Summary: Proverb has a very narrow scope, and that of the term adage is much wider (proverb is a traditional folkloric subset). We probably need a set-index article for such terms, either a new one at Adage itself, or develop the even more generalized bare list at Saying into a proper set-index article with encyclopedic content not just links to articles. At any rate, Adage needs a more appropriate link target than just going to Proverb. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks go to Doric Loon for this removal of an entirely unsourced OR paragraph at English phrasal verbs. Unfortunately, that paragraph survived ten years in the article, added in 2012 by Tjo3ya ( talk · contribs), now inactive. Glancing at their contrib history, they were a heavy contributor to linguistics-related articles, and I notice an unusual proportion of their edits being reverted by other editors, some fat cuts and restores, and where content is added, it's either unsourced ( diff1, diff2) or appears to have a citation or two, but they often don't back the preceding article content, instead, they are more of a forward-looking, "see-also"-style explanatory note within <ref> tags, of the "See Foo & Bar (2000) for a debate" type thing. There are a lot of big cuts of 5, 10, or 20kb of content, indicating a bold style, but that bothers me less, as at least they don't introduce OR content (well, one can't be sure without examining the diff, but probably not) and mostly they are not reverted.
The 2012 OR paragraph at English phrasal verbs is the first time I've encountered Tjo3ya, so I don't really know how much damage they may have done. I wonder if anyone who enjoys gnoming articles for old OR content would like to try and tackle this, or at least, provide a better idea of the scope of the problem? I notice that Botterweg14 appears to have tangled with them in April 2021 at Predicate (grammar), and had edits at half a dozen other linguistics articles around the same time, so perhaps they will recollect those edits and be able to give their impressions about this editor, in order to to better scope the extent of the problem, if indeed there is a problem. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Not part of the project but I noticed that both articles were lacking the Template, I am being bold and adding said template to them, if someone who is from the project desagree that it should be added, feel free to remove it. Also, since I don't understand the class and importance level of those terms, I didn't added them so please, if you find it is relevant, add them. — Nanami73⚓ ( talk) ( contributions) 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've been noticing that our articles on the history of the verb systems of the Germanic and Romance languages seem to focus almost entirely on the conjugation of synthetic tenses and give very little information about the development of periphrastic/analytic tenses. For example, Romance verbs has only the very briefest mention of periphrasis, Germanic verbs never mentions the Germanic perfect, and Gothic verbs gives no hint about whether Gothic had a perfect at all (though it does mention a Gothic past participle and leaves us guessing about what that might have been used for).
Right now I'm interested in the fact that the modern Romance and Germanic languages share a perfect tense that has a very distinctive feature: the auxiliary "have" (j'ai mangé, ich habe gegessen) changes to "be" in a verb of motion (je suis venu, ich bin gekommen). That is so idiocyncratic that it has to be an areal feature, and the fact that it is even found in Icelandic and Romanian, both conservative outliers in their respective groups, suggests it is very old. But it is not Indo-European, so it is an innovation in both Germanic and Romance. Although the "have" construction has a tentative predecessor in Vulgar Latin, I can't find any discussion of the origin of the whole system, or how it came to be shared by two geographically adjacent language families.
Does anyone here have the expertise to write this up? Or at least to point me in the direction of literature so I can try it myself? Doric Loon ( talk) 08:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Another editor and I are in disagreement about what constitutes original research in the article on the phrase Tory scum. I believe the article is being held to standards different to other articles as it seems the other editor insists examples of the phrase come from sources that say something like, "This incident is an example of when the phrase "Tory scum" was used". The fullest the article has been, with the most examples given, was this edit. After discussion with the other editor, I suggested this more limited edit. After both, the other editor deleted the section containing examples of use of the phrase. Other opinions are sought as at the moment it's only the two of us so perhaps we're caught in ruts. The active discussion on the talk page is here. Thank you for your involvement. Woofboy ( talk) 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding a merge between Difrasismo and Dvandva at Talk:Difrasismo#Merge? that could do with some input (there). The key current query is whether there is a suitable over-arching article into which both could be merged, but please also consider the reasonableness of the primary proposal. Klbrain ( talk) 18:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
According to Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages (2022), there is a single Komi language, for which two literary languages, Komi-Permyak and Komi-Zyryan were created. Neither of these languages seems to be primary one in any sense and deserve the designation as 'the Komi language', but for some reason Komi-Zyryan now holds that title. Also, Komi-Permyak is under a name Permyak, contrary to the reliable sources. I am not familiar with linguistics articles in Wikipedia, so I am asking for opinions on what should be done.
Should we move Permyak > Komi-Permyak, Komi>Komi-Zyryan and make Komi language into a disambiguation or a short article explaining the variants and the historical reason for their existence? This would probably affect many links. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 23:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Voiced palatal approximant § Do not undo the alveolo-palatal approximant. Nardog ( talk) 15:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF has stalled out, with stonewalling by a single party, who claims that the syntactic problems in the policy material's opening sentence, which I've outlined in considerable detail, are just "[my] opinion" and that doing anything about them is "not needed" and is " WP:CREEP". I think these grammatical-meaning and parseability issues are objectively factual and not a matter of subjective opinion, but that editor will not engage on the matter further, there or in user talk [7], where I demonstrated that the revision actually complies with is not against the goals of the CREEP essay.
The discussion has too few active participants (despite "advertising" the thread to WP:VPPOL) to move past this issue. Either I'm correct that the sentence is syntactically faulty or I am not, and additional voices should get us past this blockage one way or the other. If I'm simply wrong about the problems I see in the original wording, then feel free to say so.
It's basically come down to a choice between the versions in the last two subthreads there (unless someone wants to propose a new revision); no real need to pore over the entire revision process. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I was reading the article Rubus tricolor and thought the IPA transcription was interesting: /ˈruːbəs ˈtraɪkʌlər/
I am no expert, but it was my understanding that the difference between the vowel sounds ʌ and ə was simply that the former is under stress, and the latter is not under stress. But in this word, the main stress falls on the first syllable, meaning that the second syllable must be unstressed (unless there is secondary stress?). Therefore, we should have both unstressed syllables (i.e., second and third syllables) rendered as schwa, correct? Anyway, I am not sure if it is correct, or if my previous understanding was not accurate. Many thanks, Moribundum ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone might want to review the edits from 90.241.160.140 and 84.68.219.93. The editor has changed many articles without any sourcing, mostly related to letters and alphabets (especially Armenian, Cyrillic, Glagolitic, and IPA ones), and the edit summaries range from vague to patent nonsense. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
rv dubious edits by user:90.241.160.140 per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Unsourced editsand left a note at their talk page inviting them to explain why they consider their edits to have been valid. The facetious tone of many of their edit notes do not inspire confidence. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 14:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
90.241.160.140 is now reverting my reversions. I have no inclination to get bogged down in an edit war so if anybody cares about these topics, they will need to open a WP:ANI report and redo the reversions. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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, 21Auto-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!
Kajkavian is currently being attacked by a nationalist edit warrior who keeps changing the classification of Shtokavian and Chakavian as Serbo-Croatian to an unscientific classification of them as "Croatian", which makes no sense and is clearly against the consensus. Sol505000 ( talk) 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
See
[3]: 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.”
Hi, folks! Hope you're doing well. Found this redirect, Linguistic elaboration, but the phrase doesn't show up and is not linked anywhere in Wikipedia. Thought I'd ask some knowledgeable Wikipedians because I don't want to take it to WP:RfD if it's easier to insert and wikilink the phrase somewhere and "rescue" it that way.
Details: the target article,
Abstand and ausbau languages, doesn't even have the string "elaborat" (the closest is langue par élaboration
).
Autonomy and heteronomy defines ausbau as the elaboration of a language to serve as a literary standard
;
Standard language mentions elaboration of function
(and defines Ausbau as further linguistic development
).
An extremely rushed Internet search has led me to "linguistic elaboration" as a translation of sprachlicher Ausbau, a concept introduced by Kloss (1929) and popularized by Haugen (1966)
.
[1]
tl;dr what should I do? a) take the "Linguistic elaboration" redirect to RfD or b) find some way of mentioning or wikilinking the phrase in existing articles? Thanks in advanced for reading and for any input!
References
Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 03:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Harold Innis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialization (linguistics) has been relisted three times but has received minimal participation. If you have ideas about the article, please consider commenting. Cnilep ( talk) 03:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
If anyone here is interested in this discussion, it can be found at Talk:Romance languages#Representation of Classical Latin–Vulgar Latin split in infobox? Arctic Circle System ( talk) 09:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
More than a month ago, I opened a discussion in Talk:Synthetic language#Fusional and agglutinating languages, about a number of changes by a single editor in Synthetic language, changes that I found flawed. There's been no reply so far. Please help, any comment is welcome. Jotamar ( talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This article, terribly Anglocentric until 27 February 2015, is still somewhat lacking a global viewpoint. The recording since 27 February 2015 may be somehow called an "alveolar approximant" but anyone who read
John Wells
[1] uses the detailed transcriptions ⟨sz̞ᵚ⟩ for si
and The
Nuosu language has two similar "buzzed" vowels that are described as syllabic fricatives, [β̩, ɹ̝̍
citation needed.
from
apical vowel, an article itself is also problematic and labelled by me, would find the two alveolar approximant totally different, much more different than the recording of the alveolar approximant and of the postalveolar approximant.
I initiated a discussion after the thread of a German IP: Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants#Two symbols; only one explained. However, given the fact that the exact nature of the stereotypical "rhoticized alveolar" approximant (such as the recording) as opposed to plain alveolar approximant is not at all well-studied, it is unlikely to give a wellsourced scientifical definition in Wikipedia. However, the writing of Wikipedia should not work against common sense, when the ears of a billion people can notice the difference of the sound it is no longer a minor difference but a phonemical difference or at least a difference of potentially phonemical importance. I have basically stopped actively pushing the idea of separation of the two sounds but the writing style of that article should be changed. Ten years ago when I first read that article I found it absurd because no matter how hard I try I cannot articulate any sound that is remotely similar to the English sometimes alveolar sometimes postalveolar approximant, and always get a acoustically non-rhoticized sound - this is not what Wikipedia intends to do. I no longer actively push the idea not only because the topic is itself not well-studied but treated like an elephant in the room by people in the circle, but also because I myself cannot give an accurately describe all ways to make an alveolar approximant rhotacized (what I can say is, when one keeps one's tongue flat except for the articulation point it's a plain sound while when one's tongue is relaxed and curled somewhere other than the articulation point, or sulcalized, etc. it tends to produce a rhotacized sound acoustically not very different from a postalveolar approximant) and I do not want to give any original research or even misstatements (I might already did by saying Huashan Mandarin has two oral alveolar approximants phonemically but they seem to be only semi-phonemically different). It is much easier to say the difference is not something than is something: I can seriously tell that Sol505000's idea that the Dahalo and English difference is apical/laminal difference or the difference between alveolar this way and postalveolar were wrong and original research, but I don't want to characterize it either (if someone can characterize this acoustic rhoticity by F3+ it's highly appreciated). Both Nardog and Sol505000 in the discussion are unfamiliar with the topic (Mandarin/Dahalo/Danish/Loloish phonology, thus outside that part of the academic circle) so I don't trust their opinion, and I don't trust myself either. So please if anyone in the circle can take part in that discussion I would appreciate that and may comfortably leave the talk. Note that the discussion were filled with unrelated wording-problem such as "rhotic". Here's the last version that distinguishes the rhoticized alveolar from plain alveolar approximant, where you can find the academic primary source that indicate the Huashan Mandarin to have two semi-phonemically distinct alveolar approximant:
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help), entry 安徽马鞍山花山霍里街道.(P.S. With the help of pronouncing a rhotic alveolar approximant as in the recording, I now can pronounce a strongly fricative alveolar or even dentialveolar sibilant, apical or laminal, that are acoustically not very different from a postalveolar/retroflex sibilant, but this may be entirely a different topic and may be just a strongly hushing dentialveolar.)
The separation of sounds dealt in the article is also ad hoc: I didn't see any source making a separation between apical postalveolar and apical retroflex approximants phonemically, I guess the only difference is how back your tongue curls but both Mandarin and English seemed to have the two adjacent approximants in free variation (some even argued that all Mandarin retroflex series are all merely postalveolar - tongue tip not going toward as back as palatal). Given the fact that when pronouncing an approximant your tongue doesn't touch the passive place of articulation, the difference between the two are even harder to define. However, Wikipedia has them in different articles anyway. On the other hand, Sol505000 ( talk · contribs) argued that dentialveolar approximant would be my original research, well I am not sure but I have seen some Chinese linguistic graduate student using "prealveolar approximant" [ɹ̟̍] in their blog to describe the Chinese flat-tongued apical vowel because the stereotypical rhotic alveolar approximant is acoustically too different from that apical vowel but sounds closer to retroflex apical vowel. Of course saying a dentialveolar approximant to have a passive place of articulation sharply at the edge between your teeth and your alveolar ridge is not possible, but I don't think use the term "dentialveolar approximant" to emphasize the sound to be neither close to interdental/front dental nor close to the Dahalo-like "alveolar tending toward post-alveolar" may cause any problems. I have no idea why Sol505000 considers the distinction between apical postalvelar and apical retroflex to be founded while dentialveolar to be unfounded, and I would promote the ExtIPA [ð͇˕] for Dahalo language apical-alveolar series instead of [ð̠˕] because the current usage of [t̠] and [d̠] in Dahalo language is not quite accurate. 146.96.28.10 ( talk) 02:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I have also included many well-sourced examples of Sinitic languages, which are reverted by Sol505000 without explanation. Nardog once had some problem with it but they no longer opposes that. My point is, if the article apical vowel describes the these vowels in three controversial ways, these examples should be listed as examples in all three articles rather than neither. Similar treatment should be done with the Mandarin final nasal approximants (like the Burmese one), such as Tian'anmen (tʰjɛ́͢ð̠̃˕.á͢ð̠̃˕.mə̌͢ð̠̃˕): if Mandarin phonology describes it in some way, it deserves to be mentioned as an example in corresponding articles. The awkward treatment of apical vowel and the IPA rejection of Sinologist IPA shouldn't be used as a tool to intentionally ignore the existance of these sounds in Mandarin (I personally find it very discriminative to assign Swedish ɧ an IPA symbol but the Chinese ones and Danish ones rejected). The latest version with these example but without the controversial rhotacized/plain difference is here. -- 146.96.28.10 ( talk) 04:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Austronesier and I can't achieve consensus on our last discussion on the talk page. I'd like a third opinion. Rolando 1208 ( talk) 12:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Proverb#Adage needs to stop redirecting here. Summary: Proverb has a very narrow scope, and that of the term adage is much wider (proverb is a traditional folkloric subset). We probably need a set-index article for such terms, either a new one at Adage itself, or develop the even more generalized bare list at Saying into a proper set-index article with encyclopedic content not just links to articles. At any rate, Adage needs a more appropriate link target than just going to Proverb. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks go to Doric Loon for this removal of an entirely unsourced OR paragraph at English phrasal verbs. Unfortunately, that paragraph survived ten years in the article, added in 2012 by Tjo3ya ( talk · contribs), now inactive. Glancing at their contrib history, they were a heavy contributor to linguistics-related articles, and I notice an unusual proportion of their edits being reverted by other editors, some fat cuts and restores, and where content is added, it's either unsourced ( diff1, diff2) or appears to have a citation or two, but they often don't back the preceding article content, instead, they are more of a forward-looking, "see-also"-style explanatory note within <ref> tags, of the "See Foo & Bar (2000) for a debate" type thing. There are a lot of big cuts of 5, 10, or 20kb of content, indicating a bold style, but that bothers me less, as at least they don't introduce OR content (well, one can't be sure without examining the diff, but probably not) and mostly they are not reverted.
The 2012 OR paragraph at English phrasal verbs is the first time I've encountered Tjo3ya, so I don't really know how much damage they may have done. I wonder if anyone who enjoys gnoming articles for old OR content would like to try and tackle this, or at least, provide a better idea of the scope of the problem? I notice that Botterweg14 appears to have tangled with them in April 2021 at Predicate (grammar), and had edits at half a dozen other linguistics articles around the same time, so perhaps they will recollect those edits and be able to give their impressions about this editor, in order to to better scope the extent of the problem, if indeed there is a problem. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Not part of the project but I noticed that both articles were lacking the Template, I am being bold and adding said template to them, if someone who is from the project desagree that it should be added, feel free to remove it. Also, since I don't understand the class and importance level of those terms, I didn't added them so please, if you find it is relevant, add them. — Nanami73⚓ ( talk) ( contributions) 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've been noticing that our articles on the history of the verb systems of the Germanic and Romance languages seem to focus almost entirely on the conjugation of synthetic tenses and give very little information about the development of periphrastic/analytic tenses. For example, Romance verbs has only the very briefest mention of periphrasis, Germanic verbs never mentions the Germanic perfect, and Gothic verbs gives no hint about whether Gothic had a perfect at all (though it does mention a Gothic past participle and leaves us guessing about what that might have been used for).
Right now I'm interested in the fact that the modern Romance and Germanic languages share a perfect tense that has a very distinctive feature: the auxiliary "have" (j'ai mangé, ich habe gegessen) changes to "be" in a verb of motion (je suis venu, ich bin gekommen). That is so idiocyncratic that it has to be an areal feature, and the fact that it is even found in Icelandic and Romanian, both conservative outliers in their respective groups, suggests it is very old. But it is not Indo-European, so it is an innovation in both Germanic and Romance. Although the "have" construction has a tentative predecessor in Vulgar Latin, I can't find any discussion of the origin of the whole system, or how it came to be shared by two geographically adjacent language families.
Does anyone here have the expertise to write this up? Or at least to point me in the direction of literature so I can try it myself? Doric Loon ( talk) 08:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Another editor and I are in disagreement about what constitutes original research in the article on the phrase Tory scum. I believe the article is being held to standards different to other articles as it seems the other editor insists examples of the phrase come from sources that say something like, "This incident is an example of when the phrase "Tory scum" was used". The fullest the article has been, with the most examples given, was this edit. After discussion with the other editor, I suggested this more limited edit. After both, the other editor deleted the section containing examples of use of the phrase. Other opinions are sought as at the moment it's only the two of us so perhaps we're caught in ruts. The active discussion on the talk page is here. Thank you for your involvement. Woofboy ( talk) 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding a merge between Difrasismo and Dvandva at Talk:Difrasismo#Merge? that could do with some input (there). The key current query is whether there is a suitable over-arching article into which both could be merged, but please also consider the reasonableness of the primary proposal. Klbrain ( talk) 18:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
According to Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages (2022), there is a single Komi language, for which two literary languages, Komi-Permyak and Komi-Zyryan were created. Neither of these languages seems to be primary one in any sense and deserve the designation as 'the Komi language', but for some reason Komi-Zyryan now holds that title. Also, Komi-Permyak is under a name Permyak, contrary to the reliable sources. I am not familiar with linguistics articles in Wikipedia, so I am asking for opinions on what should be done.
Should we move Permyak > Komi-Permyak, Komi>Komi-Zyryan and make Komi language into a disambiguation or a short article explaining the variants and the historical reason for their existence? This would probably affect many links. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 23:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Voiced palatal approximant § Do not undo the alveolo-palatal approximant. Nardog ( talk) 15:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF has stalled out, with stonewalling by a single party, who claims that the syntactic problems in the policy material's opening sentence, which I've outlined in considerable detail, are just "[my] opinion" and that doing anything about them is "not needed" and is " WP:CREEP". I think these grammatical-meaning and parseability issues are objectively factual and not a matter of subjective opinion, but that editor will not engage on the matter further, there or in user talk [7], where I demonstrated that the revision actually complies with is not against the goals of the CREEP essay.
The discussion has too few active participants (despite "advertising" the thread to WP:VPPOL) to move past this issue. Either I'm correct that the sentence is syntactically faulty or I am not, and additional voices should get us past this blockage one way or the other. If I'm simply wrong about the problems I see in the original wording, then feel free to say so.
It's basically come down to a choice between the versions in the last two subthreads there (unless someone wants to propose a new revision); no real need to pore over the entire revision process. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I was reading the article Rubus tricolor and thought the IPA transcription was interesting: /ˈruːbəs ˈtraɪkʌlər/
I am no expert, but it was my understanding that the difference between the vowel sounds ʌ and ə was simply that the former is under stress, and the latter is not under stress. But in this word, the main stress falls on the first syllable, meaning that the second syllable must be unstressed (unless there is secondary stress?). Therefore, we should have both unstressed syllables (i.e., second and third syllables) rendered as schwa, correct? Anyway, I am not sure if it is correct, or if my previous understanding was not accurate. Many thanks, Moribundum ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone might want to review the edits from 90.241.160.140 and 84.68.219.93. The editor has changed many articles without any sourcing, mostly related to letters and alphabets (especially Armenian, Cyrillic, Glagolitic, and IPA ones), and the edit summaries range from vague to patent nonsense. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
rv dubious edits by user:90.241.160.140 per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Unsourced editsand left a note at their talk page inviting them to explain why they consider their edits to have been valid. The facetious tone of many of their edit notes do not inspire confidence. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 14:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
90.241.160.140 is now reverting my reversions. I have no inclination to get bogged down in an edit war so if anybody cares about these topics, they will need to open a WP:ANI report and redo the reversions. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
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)