Talk:Yongnan languages

Rename, Rewrite, Merge or Delete

The current form of this article is totally unsound. An article must be written in a coherent fashion not disjointed notes. Currently it is impossible for other editors to improve this article because it is unclear what the topic and scope of the article is. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename: If the article is about the provisional Group D Tai languages in Pittayaporn (2009) the title should include words Group D in the title. Considerable rewriting would still be required. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite: If the article is to be called Yongnan languages or similar the content must be rewritten to reflect the usual usage of this term. Many authors have used this term with the meaning given in Zhang and Ethnologue. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge: If the scope of the article is Group D in Pittayaporn (2009), the question remains whether or not there is enough content to make a separate article it may be best to merge the content inside another article. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Hopefully it will not come to this, however if none of the above can be agreed as a course of action and the article retains its current form then it would be necessary to delete the article. Johnkn63 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is unsound. Pittayaporn's tree is still a very provisional, and "iffy," one, though there is probably a lot of truth to it simply because there's more data available in 2009 than in, say, the 1970's. In the academic literature, "Yongnan" is never referred to as a branch that includes Northern Tai, but rather as one of the 13 dialect groupings of Zhuang that can be subsumed under one of the three primary branches of Tai. Zuojiang Zhuang languages and Chongzuo Tai languages should also be redirected or deleted. Instead, there should be an article on Central Tai languages, since that is a well-accepted grouping. — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

ten

Zuojiang Zhuang languages is an accepted term by a number of authors and so could like this article be written, the article Chongzuo Tai languages seems to have no solid basis as a generally accepted term, and so it seems should either be merged or deleted.Johnkn63 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I reworked the article a bit to avoid giving the impression that it is specifically about P's clade D. P is simply the most detailed info I have on it. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some improvement. However there are still problems with the current article which are twofold (1) Is it acceptable to write an article on this based solely on Pittayaporn (2) do those parts of ientatthe article than claim to be based on Pittayaporn reflect in an accurate and balanced way what Pittayaporn says. The answer to (1) is that not even Pittayaporn would claim that his thesis is sufficient for that, he did not coin the term Yongnan, Zhang and other Chinese linguists did, and also Pittayaporn describes his classification as tentative. (2) Here again the answer seems to be considerable divergence from the source, there is for example no use of the terms 'Yongnan languages', and 'Yongnan Zhuang proper', there is a question here concerning how much of the content is Pittayaporn's and how much is original research by the editor of the article, whilst the addition of the word languages could be deem fair clarification the addition of the word 'proper' indicates either a misunderstanding of Pittayaporn, or an addition by the editor of type which should be removed.Johnkn63 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly if I've misrepresented P, that should be corrected. However, Yongnan is a language in Ethnologue, and IMO we don't want separate articles for Yongnan (Ethnologue) and Yongnan (Pittayaporn). It's natural to have both POVs in one place. At least, that's what we do with every other language article. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, different POV's should be given. In order to understand P on Yongnan first one has to be clear whether in a sentence Yongnan refers to the Southern part of Yongning or whether it refers to several counties south of the Youjiang river, in Chinese these are both abbreviated to 邕南. so for example on page 168 it says 'Yongnan and Hengxian' and these are both sample points in Zhang(1999) then Yongnan here is the Southern part of Yongning is it not? Johnkn63 (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Balancing the article

I see that a lot of work has been done on the clade diagram in the article, however the correct place for this is in fact with as part of a complete Pittayaporn diagram. It presence here produces an imbalance in the article. The sentence 'In the classification of Pittiyaporn (2009), Yongnan is not a single language, or even a natural group, but parts of two main branches of the Tai language family (clades C, I, and M)' with some link is more than sufficient. Though slightly different in style the content merely duplicates part of the diagram on Pittiyaporn in the article Tai languages. I will therefore remove this diagram when I start the rewrite of this article sometime within the next 7 days.Johnkn63 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for conveying P's conception. It's currently unbalanced, but that's because the other side is missing altogether, not because P's POV is being overemphasized. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

P's POV does not require the diagram to convey it.Johnkn63 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But it would still be a list. I fail to see much difference between the two, except that a bulleted list is clearer. — kwami (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The bulleted list is the whole of Ps Groups C and D. P does not call these by the name Yongnan to include this bulleted here misrepresents P. Also there are questions as to where the terminology in the list comes from, for example where does the term 'Yongnan Zhuang of Chongzuo' come from? Not from P's thesis so what is it doing here in a list showing his POV. The same can be said for 'Yongnan Zhuang of Shangsi', 'Yongnan Zhuang of Qinzhou', 'Yongnan Zhuang proper' , 'Yongnan Zhuang of Long'an', and 'Yongnan Zhuang of Fusui'. This bulleted list does not clarify what P has to say about Yongnan languages but obscures it by giving lots of extra information.Johnkn63 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, you're right. I don't recall offhand where the labels came from. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

I removed the quick-delete tag. This is an ISO language name. As such it needs to remain on WP, as do all other ISO names. The article may be merged into another if someone feels that would better serve the reader, but at least a RD must remain so that readers can find the relevant information, whether they're looking up the ISO name or the ISO code. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami I just saw your reply on your talk page. Thanks very much. I am not sure what to do with this. This is certainly not my area of expertise. Let me look into what I can do. It could be an interesting challenge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I didn't do a very good job with it either.

The merger would be with Tai languages, where the classification of the various lects called Yongnan is covered. But a reader might be confused why when they look up a language, they get directed to the language family. Another possibility would be to delete the classification in this article and leave "See Tai languages#Pittayaporn (2009) for details." — kwami (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)