Talk:Honorifics (linguistics)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JIAFU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

This new page, which will serve the purpose of distinguishing honorific titles from honorifics systems in linguistics, is under construction and will be undergoing major changes over the next 48 hours. Rhiannonstone (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete just yet! I originally intended to create this in my userspace before moving it over to the main site and goofed, but this article is notable and will be filled with content over the next 24-48 hours. The current Honorifics article confuses honorific titles with systems of honorifics in linguistics, and the difference between the two is significant enough to warrant two separate articles. Rhiannonstone (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhiannonstone (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Under the heading Javanese is the following phrase:

Speech levels, although not as developed or as complex as honorific speech found in Javanese, are but one of a complex and nuanced aspect of Javanese etiquette . . . .

I believe "Javanese" in this phrase is a typo for "Japanese," the previous category under discussion to which Javanese is being compared. But I'm not certain, so I hesitate to make a change.

Would the author of this piece please investigate this and make changes as appropriate?

13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) KC 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Indian Languages

Most Indian languages (Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) actively use Honorifics, yet they were not added, when the article was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagnique (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

English has no honorifics?

Modern English has no grammatical system of honorific speech, with formality and informality being conveyed entirely by register, word choice, tone, rhetorical strategy, etc.

The first sentence in the English section is demonstrably false, no? I think the editor was making a more strict distinction between honorific/title and strict qualification ("entirely"). I'm hesitant to edit it because of this possibility. Emilimo (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Emilimo If it’s demonstrably false, you must demonstrate it :)

It looks fine to me, since the “etc.” covers the bases of “entirely”.

I don’t mind removing the word “entirely”, but that template is a bit overkill IMO. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)