Talk:Sorothaptic language

Notable?

Apart from the bewildering fact that this hypothetical ghost language succeeded to get an ISO-code (does anyone know the story behind it?), the proposal doesn't seem to have made a noticeable impact in the field. Google Scholar only has 9 post-2000 entries, and in one case David Stifter (who should know better if Sorothaptic were established) even mistakes Sorothaptic for Aquitanian. The Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics doesn't mention Sorothaptic at all. IMHO, this construct is not notable enough even for a stub (regardless of the notability of its author). A separate WP article artificially keeps it alive beyond due weight.

@TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, Akerbeltz, Largoplazo, Mathglot, Florian Blaschke, and Sagotreespirit: Thoughts? –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The assignment of ISO codes isn't necessarily based on science since it's a computer-coding tool, not a linguistic analysis tool. It's used primarily to keep track of references in libraries and articles so that interested parties can quickly search for and identify resources. It should not be an excuse for calling something a "thing". This is one of those theoretical things that should have a scientific name like "pre-Celtic Iberian elements", but was foolishly named something non-descriptive. Sometimes this is done to make fragmentary hints at a language sound more firmly established than they actually are. This article should not exist, IMHO. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Should we merge it into Paleo-Hispanic languages? Since it does have an ISO code, people may look it up when they wouldn't otherwise, so we should have some explanation as to what it's for. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Or with Urnfield Culture. "In another article he will be able to pinpoint a good number of Sorothaptic place names from the Atlantic to the Baltic."

Lyle Campbell lists it as an unclassified -- or perhaps better, unclassifiable -- language. Trask also mentions it as an "unknown" language. So it would warrant at least some mention from 2ary RS's even if it doesn't deserve an ISO code. The Manual of Catalan Linguistics (2020) notes that Coromines "has not achieved broad concensus." — kwami (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It definitely should be merged into either Paleo-Hispanic languages or Urnfield Culture. I would think that PHL would be the better fit since it is purported to be a language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How's that? — kwami (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks great! PHL is apt place, and the assessment by Martines in the Handbook puts it in the right perspective. –Austronesier (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)