Talk:Linguistic norm

Add topic
Active discussions
  • Bulleted list item
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Confusing first draftEdit

The second paragraph seems to make progressively less sense as it proceeds, and seems a collection of random thoughts by the end. Largoplazo (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

After reading it through several more times, I've removed it. At least the second sentence made internal sense, but there was no clear relationship to what had been said previously. It was just an arbitrary fact left hanging in mid-air. Largoplazo (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said in a previous edition summary, a linguistic standard is just one particular type of linguistic norm, Therefore this page should become again a redirect, as it was from the beginning, until an IP editor made some quite unilateral changes.--Jotamar (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward restoring the redirection because the first paragraph doesn't really clarify anything either. If the content were clear, that would be a different matter, but right now there's nothing here that's better than a redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite Angel Angel 2's commentary below, I remain so inclined because a redirect remains better than content that doesn't explain intelligibly. Until another contributor gets involved, I don't see that happening, based on the existing content and on the sections below. I'm sorry to say this, but language like "deliberately following penalized rules for its compliance" isn't completely comprehensible and, to the extent that I think I get it, it doesn't make sense anyway, as it gives the impression that writers of Old English (a) all wrote the same way and (b) that there were penalties for failing to adhere to the so-called norm. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is very frivolous for the penalties. Literary spelling rules have been formed in literary schools, monasteries, which are generally accepted to be observed as uniform. Is it so complicated? Angel Angel 2 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"This is very frivolous for the penalties." I'm sorry, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. This sentence doesn't mean anything. Neither "frivolous" nor "penalties" makes any sense here. However valid an intelligible article would be, it's better to have a redirect than an article no one can understand. I'm not making fun of you: I'm assuming English isn't your first language. I get along in both French and Spanish when I'm traveling, and I've made edits on both French and Spanish Wikipedia, but I wouldn't write an article on either of them, or probably even more than a couple of sentences, and expect my contribution to be well received. Largoplazo (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's right for English. But the dispute is fundamental. And does not affect English. This paradigm is widely accepted in linguistics. And whether this is so in the so-called Anglo-Saxon world, it does not matter at all for the existence of the article in English. It is like neglecting Roman law, because there is an example of a common law somewhere. Or right instead of left-hand drive. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Three-tier paradigmEdit

It is basic to understand:

  1. Usus
  2. Linguistic norm
  3. Standard language

This is another concept. That's why it's a separate article. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Old English. It is not a standard language, but it is a linguistic norm.

The beginning of the project could have had a redirect to English, a history section, but now? Angel Angel 2 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Old English was no more a linguistic norm than modern English is. How can it have been a norm when it was spoken differently from community to community? Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's about the written language, not the spoken language. This is the subject of the article. The spoken language is called Usus. Today, English may have several standards, but the Linguistic norm excludes a formal regulation, but it means deliberately following penalized rules for its compliance. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"The spoken language is called Usus". Sorry, that might be true for some particular scholar or school, but I don't think it's general in works about Linguistics. Perhaps this page should be renamed Linguistic norm according to author X or something along those lines. --Jotamar (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. I find a fair number of writings observing a distinction between "usus" and "linguistic norm", with that distinction being attributed in those writings to a variety of other sources. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you provide some examples? --Jotamar (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)