 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
transliterations edit
- I would suggest that someone rewrite the transliterations on this page in [IPA], in order to better differentiate the phonemes L and I, which in this context could be misinterpreted. In the interim, I added <span>'s about some of the most confusing parts to force serif font display. Lingnik (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Italian origin edit
That Il has Semitic origin in a Semitic language when its form and function are identical to its analogues in other Semitic languages is not contested. The Italian origin is an unattested and completely unsupportable theory - to call it a fringe theory is a wild overstatement because it is not supported anywhere for it is entirely baseless in linguistic theory. The article in its current state is a dangerously misleading fabrication - the template should not be removed until this is sourced and fully resolved. Knepflerle (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Solar consonant edit
Never come across this term - if it's not a typo I think it requires an explanation. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a less-used term for sun letter. Will pipe accordingly Knepflerle (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neither of these terms (solar consonant and sunletter) is a proper linguistic term and should be replaced with proper linguistic terminology. The correct linguistic term is coronal consonant. [Later: So I notice that it has been done already.] (Taivo (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
Delete edit
Yeah, this article has no encyclopedic content. There is nothing linguistically unusual about this morpheme. So an originally Arabic morpheme coincidentally looks like a similar Italian morpheme. So what? The word for "bone" in Mohawk is ostyun and in Greek is osteon. The word for "come" is kimma in Shoshoni. The passive prefix is na- in Shoshoni and ni- in Hebrew. The word for "squirrel" was ekweorna in Old English and is ekkwyn in Shoshoni. Yawn. So what? There's lots of coincidence in this world. Very, very little of it is worth even noting or even very interesting for specialists. (Taivo (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
- I think it should be merged with the Maltese language article. The information is relevnt to Maltese grammar after all. It's most unfortunate that no profs of Maltese, or even students of the language at an adequate level, have decided to contribute long-term to the (maltese lang) article. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I support the merge. Taivo, I think the Italian coincidence is worth mentioning because of the large number of Italian borrowings in Maltese. It's entirely normal for someone who's familiar with Italian to see Maltese and assume that the article was borrowed as well. If Spanish vocab were 50% English, we might would want to mention that "mucho" is not a loan from English "much". kwami (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)