Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Archive 5

Proposed deletion of Metadefinition

The article Metadefinition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article consists of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH building on a computer science concept better discussed at Metamodeling.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 202.124.73.181 (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of ethnolinguistic groups with populations

Hi,
I think List of ethnolinguistic groups with populations may benefit from expert attention. I'm not very familiar with this area but the hierarchy seems... worrying. I think somebody may have been playing fast and loose with definitions and with population statistics. For instance, "peoples" seem to be treated as subsets of "languages". "Basque people" have a top level position in the hierarchy since they're not assigned to a broader language family, but the number seems to be the total population of areas where basque is a minority language, not the number of mother-tongue basque speakers. "'English people'" is shown as a subset of people speaking indo-european languages, but the number next to it is the population of England (in reality, not all anglophones live in England, not all English people live in England, not all people in England are anglophones, &c). And so on. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cut out some of the more obvious crud, but I doubt what remains is encyclopedic enough to keep. Maybe just delete the article? — kwami (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If it were at AfD, I would !vote "delete". I don't think it has any chance of becoming a decent article except through a complete rewrite. bobrayner (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you all are focusing too much on the "linguistic" part of the definition and not enough on the "ethnic" part of the definition in the word "ethnolinguistic". It is supposed to be a catalog of "ethnic groups" according to the definition "ethnolinguistic groups" as in Rand McNally's Goode's world atlas an ethnolinguisitic group is defined as a grouping of ETHNIC GROUPS based on languages, but language is only ONE factor. "English people" refers to those native Indo-Europeans who live in England--the English ethnic group, not all English languages speakers, the rest of which are detailed in the European diaspora section. The idea of the article is to allow the Wikipedia user to go down the list and be able to click on closely related ethnic groups and find information about them by having the closely related ethnic groups next to each other. I also thought it is interesting and informative for people to have a place to go to compare the population of each group and to know, for example, how many Polynesians there are, etc. Keraunos (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I merged the negatively defined groups with the positively defined groups to preserve the alphabetical order of the list, and I noted each negatively defined group in the footnotes. Keraunos (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Keraunos, you make a good point about the English. The problem I have with the article is that some of the alleged ethnic groups do not actually exist: they are figments of a linguistic classification. I purged the article of some of those, but I suspect others remain. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a list of ethnic groups based on language...

• Why are so many lower-level groups based on national statistics rather than linguistic ones? We even have 300000 "luxembourgian people" - does anybody genuinely believe that they are a separate ethnic group from the French, Belgian, and German people living a few miles away who carry different passports but who speak the same language and shop at the same supermarket? (Hint: Luxembourg is a very recent national creation; there is a larger adjoining Belgian territory with the same name and the two used to be part of the same territory; To the extent that Luxembourgian is a meaningful language it is nowhere near a 1:1 relationship with luxembourg passport holders)
• If the "English" ethnic group is not about language, why does the list completely ignore the disproportionately large number of descendents of anglophone but non-English people who emigrated to British colonies? The new world has many millions of descendents of welsh, scottish, and irish emigrants - but they are completely absent from this list because it's based on an absurd linguistic hierarchy of ethnic backgrounds which simply doesn't exist in the real world.
• Does anybody even know whether the "arab" population figure is based on descendents of ethnic arabs, or current arabic speakers, or descendents of arabic-speakers, or just totting up the current populations of nominally-arab nationalities?

At best the article is wildly misleading; the groups simply don't exist in the way that they are presented, and if it's acknowledged that language is only one factor in ethnicity (though the article gives the opposite impression) then even gutting the article of poorly-sourced or misleading stuff but leaving a structure that puts all the world's ethnicities into a linguistic tree would still leave us with an unencyclopædic mess.

bobrayner (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing is really simple and easy. You all are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. The idea is simply to catalog the major ethnic groups of the world and put them in a nested hierarchy based on language families so the lay Wikipedia user can conveniently and easily compare the populations of different ethnic groups that are closely related instead of using the alphabetical List of ethnic groups which does not show the inter-relation among the ethnic groups they way this list does. The Wikipedia users can then click on the articles about adjacently listed closely related ethnic groups and get information about them. The larger groups like the Austronesians are simply meta-ethnicities that the smaller groups are a part of. It is a simple ballpark estimate list to make it easy and convenient for the Wikipedia user. The technical issues about which languages are in which families and to what degree they are related and which groups are valid linguistically and debates about the precise definitions of various ethnic groups are covered in the articles about the language groups and in the articles about the individual ethnic groups--people can go to these articles if they are interested in the technicalities. Keraunos (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the negatively defined groups need to be listed merged into the same list as the positively defined groups with footnotes at the bottom indicating which groups are negatively defined as I did in my edit of the article so as to make it easy for the Wikipedia user by having all the highest categories in the hierarchy (the language groups--whether they are positively or negatively defined) in consistent alphabetical order. Keraunos (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not categorizing major ethnic groups by language. It's inventing new ethnic groups based on language! I started tagging what I suspect are spurious ethnic groups (at the higher end, ignoring things like Luxembourgers), and I ended up with a couple dozen tags. That's just ridiculous. There are spurious ethnicities such as "Khoisan" which were invented by anthropologists, and then there are language families reified as peoples, when no-one would have ever considered those people to be an ethnic group if some linguist hadn't proposed that particular language family. An ethnolinguistic group is an ethnicity whose self-identity is defined at least partially by language. Linguistic classification is irrelevant. We can organize ethnolinguistic groups by language family if you like, but we can't then present those families as if they were families of ethnic groups or, worse, as if they were ethnic groups themselves. — kwami (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two possible ways forward here:

1. Somebody drastically changes the article so that it's no longer a linguistic hierarchy of ethnic groups, let alone a linguistic hierarchy of invented groups (often national) which are pretended to be ethnic;
2. I take the article to AfD because in it's present state it's intrinsically misleading and WP:SYNTH.

The notion that it's OK for it to be misleading because linked articles are accurate is not a third option. Any preferences, from those two? bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that "estonian", "finnish", "hungarian" &c people are grouped together, but treated as a totally separate ethnic bloc from the rest of Europe. This can only have been done on a linguistic basis; other evidence gives a very different message. There is no such distinction between European peoples in reality. Garbage in, garbage out. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The term European peoples in this case means the western branch of the Indo-European peoples, the eastern branch of which is the Indo-Iranian peoples (from the compound word Indo-European), as per the reference from Will Durant, and therefore excludes those ethnic groups that speak Uralic languages. Keraunos (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is titled Austronesian peoples. In it they are defined as the collectivity of all those ethnic groups who speak Austronesian languages. It does not mean that the Austronesian peoples are an ethnic group themselves, they are just a COLLECTION of peoples--individual ethnic groups, i.e. the collectivity of all those "peoples"--ethnic groups--that speak Austronesian languages. Keraunos (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is not a big deal. This article is just a list. It takes the information about the populations of ethnic groups, and the populations of the language families they are a part of, that is already in Wikipedia and organizes it into a list for the convenience of the Wikipedia user who is doing research about ethnic groups so that they can go down the list and click on the individual ethnic groups that are closely related to each other and get information about them. In addition it is like an informal census result (compiled from the information already in the Wikipedia articles) that people can go to get a rough estimate of the current population figures of various ethnic groups. That is the purpose of the article. Keraunos (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no way that "European peoples" in any normal sense of the phrase means Indo-European. The Basques, Etruscans, Finns, and Hungarians are all European peoples. And what about the Roma? Are they not European because they speak Indic? — kwami (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

European peoples is used in the linguistic sense according to the reference from Will Durant as being those peoples in the western or European branch of the Indo-European peoples, i.e., those Indo-Europeans ethnic groups that are not included in the eastern or Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European peoples, and thus it includes also people who don't live in Europe such as the European Americans and the European Australians. It is not being used in the geographical sense of peoples who reside in Europe. Keraunos (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC) The Roma are generally recognized as being an ethnic group in the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-Iranian peoples. They just happened to have migrated to Europe. Keraunos (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this footnote from Durant's The Story of Civilization volume I?

The word Aryan first appears in the Harri, one of the tribes of Mitanni. In general it was the self-given appellation of peoples living near, or coming from, the shores of the Caspian Sea. The term is properly applied today chiefly to the Mitannians, Hittites, Medes, Persians, and Vedic Hindus — i.e., only to the eastern branch of the Indo-European peoples, whose western branch populated Europe.

This is in the context of Durant's reference to "what was once so conveniently called the 'Aryan' race." I don't take this to be an assertion that European, Indo-European, or western-branch Indo-European is an ethnic group, nor that any ethnic group is co-extant with the Indo-European language family. Indeed, the specific mention of Mitannians, Hittites, etc. and his distancing from the term "Aryan" seem to me to argue against such a conclusion. Cnilep (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

These problems seem to be deep, wideranging, and insoluble; so I've taken the article to AfD. bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypocorrection

As near as I can tell, the page Hypocorrection is based on a misunderstanding. The term "hypocorrection" is apparently attributable to John Ohala, and describes a condition wherein language change results from perceptual error. (As I understand it, a listener fails to account for context such as co-articulation and attributes allophonic variation to underlying phonetic form. But don't quote me on that.)

The page claims that hypocorrection is "the purposeful addition of slang in an attempt to appear less intelligible or soften the description", and cites some LING 110 lecture notes (which in turn cite Ohala, and say nothing about slang or intelligibility).

Can this be fixed - for example, does anyone here know about the phenomenon? Or must the page be taken down?

The cited lecture notes mention "Ohala (1993)" and "Hombert, Ohala, and Ewan (1979)", but don't provide a full citation. They are probably (per Professor Ohala's home page):

• Hombert, J.-M., Ohala, J. J., & Ewan, W. G. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55. 37-58.
• Ohala, J. J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London: Longman. 237-278.

Cnilep (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Expressive loan

Any linguist who can read Finnish: Could you please have a look at Expressive loan?

The page cites a single source, an academic paper written in Finnish by Vesa Jarva. Per the paper's English abstract, I understand that the study looked at expressive words (ideophones, onomatopoeia) borrowed from Russian into Finnish. It finds that "expressivity" and "Russian influence" are not negatively correlated, and suggests that this has implications for etymological study. It also finds that such Russian loans are more common in Finnish spoken near the border with Russia.

Google Scholar finds 14 other articles, 10 in Finnish and 4 in English, that cite the original paper. Seven of those papers appear in the same journal as the original paper by Jarva, but I'm unable to resolve the URLs from Google Scholar.

I wonder whether this article constitutes the inflation of a minor theory, possibly via original research, or if on the other hand this is a notable topic so that the article should be improved. Cnilep (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an English summary on page 166. The key is that the "expressivity" is applied after the word has been loaned from Russian, such that its connection with the Russian original is lost. Thus, the subsequent phonological changes then occur by that mechanism only, and the original form is either lost or confined to the border area, while elsewhere only the expressive variants are found. For examples, see the maps.

I wonder what's the relationship with eggcorn, although that was first described in September 2003, while Jarva notes that he started his work in 1996, even though the publication date is in August 2003. "Eggcorn" to my reading seems to be identical to simple mishearing or folk etymology, so that seems like reinventing the wheel.

This study is a part of a wider debate in the Finnish linguistics community on how to interpret variation, random if taken at face value, of stem vowels that diffuses through dialects. Although accepting them as an ex nihilo productive etymology has been rejected (this runs into problems with falsifiability), the phenomenon does occur, and the target of this work seems to be to characterize it in the special case of diffusion of loanwords from Russian. As for notability, I cannot pronounce on it, since I'm not a linguist by trade. --vuo (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Vuo. You mention a wider debate within Finnish linguistics. If you could point to some papers or some scholars engaged in the debate, that would be a great help, too.

By the way, I have just figured out that what I was reading (well, examining; I don't read Finnish) via the Internet Archive is not the abstract of a journal paper but a description of Jarva's dissertation. Here is the listing at WorldCat. Professor Jarva also has a chapter (in English) on "expressive and borrowed elements" in this book. Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin of language

There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School",[2] which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:

Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language); - * Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language); - * Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language); - * Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).[4]

This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Input would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Here the problem is more constructive discussion. Ибадов (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy one piece here that was here (translation of this fragment)

The Azerbaijan Linguistic School works on the belief that speech does not precede language and is not the only instrument for language performance. Language can exist without speech, and nonverbal means can play the role of shell (medium) for language. Humans developed the verbal language form because other channels of communication are not so extensive or comfortable. Here natural selection favours the verbal channel. Despite the dominance of the visual channel in everyday human relations with the outside world, it is insufficiently reliable for individual security. Human vision apprehends at any given moment only a quarter of the visible environment, and is usable for only half of the time (i.e., during wakefulness). The efficiency of the visual channel is also limited by various adverse conditions such as smoke, fog, or any other obstacles.

The auditory canal activity is available for 24 hours in the range of 360 degrees in space. The only barrier for sound propagation is strong noise, which is a very atypical occurrence. Furthermore, in order to communicate with a person visually it is necessary that this person sees the communicator. On the other hand, the auditory canal is open around the clock for perception of information from all sides, from anyone, and without any special settings. All this contributed to the human verbal (oral) form of language development.

It is believed that the mechanism of modern sophisticated and overly-complicated human languages development is identical to the writing evolutionary mechanism. That is writing development experienced stages:

• Stage I: Grapheme = sentence (pictographic writing);
• Stage II: Grapheme = word or phrase (ideographic writing);
• Stage III: Grapheme = syllable (syllabic writing);
• Stage IV: Grapheme = sound (phonetic writing).

The same trajectory language has experienced and it evolved through stages:

• Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language);
• Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language);
• Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language);
• Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).

That is, some cry, first substituted (designated) a whole sentence, then — only a part of the sentence, and then — part of the word .

-----------------------

-- Wedanta (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of WikiProject Applied Linguistics

Hi everyone, I have made a proposal over at the WikiProject Council to start WikiProject Applied Linguistics. I would be grateful to hear your thoughts about how this project might fit into the larger scheme of WikiProjects at Wikipedia. The proposal page can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Applied Linguistics. Thanks for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to merge smaller daughter WikiProjects into WikiProject Linguistics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed as support - there is consensus to implement the proposed changes. (I am the proposer of this RfC, but I thought I would go ahead and close it, as the result seems obvious.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Following initial discussion at my proposal for an Applied Linguistics WikiProject, it was generally felt that considering the relatively small number of editors involved, it would be better to make Applied Linguistics a task force of WikiProject Linguistics rather than creating a new daughter WikiProject. I am of the opinion that this calls for a restructuring of the entire WikiProject Linguistics tree. So, I propose the following:

1. WikiProject Linguistics be converted from its current status as an umbrella project to a full-blown WikiProject
2. A new Applied Linguistics Task Force be created
3. The smaller daughter WikiProjects of WikiProject Linguistics be converted to task forces of WikiProject Linguistics

This would create a more tightly-knit group of editors, reduce bureaucracy for the smaller WikiProjects, and create a support structure for collaborations on applied linguistics articles which is lacking at present. It would also mean that collaborations on articles dealing with other fields within linguistics could be set up more easily, should the need arise.

At the moment there five WikiProjects under the umbrella of WikiProject Linguistics: WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Etymology, WikiProject Phonetics, and WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics. WikiProject Languages is obviously too big to convert, and I think the same probably goes for WikiProject Writing systems. I propose converting the other three, particularly WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, as it is semi-active. So this would mean:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Etymology would be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Etymology Task Force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Phonetics would be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Phonetics Task Force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics would be moved to WikiProject Linguistics/Theoretical Linguistics Task Force

I will, of course, be happy to do the organization and sort out the page moves, templates, etc. Please let me know what you think of my proposal, and please also tell me if you have any suggestions as to how it may be improved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Support; I think this idea is a practical way to restructure the current clutter. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. I can't think of any disadvantages. I definitely agree that WP Languages should be kept separate. Angr (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Support I think it should be the same as the Philosophy project and the Military history project with task forces built into the banner. I would be willing to help with all the logistics and moving of things if necessary. I could use a little help over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture.Greg Bard (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

   I can help update the template if you need it. Also, I have AWB permission, so I can automatically recat all the old project pages to the new task forces. Let me know. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 05:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

5. Generally support. I am one of the editors who brought Theoretical Linguistics back to (semi)active status. Given the level of participation and discussion there, I think it could work just as well as a task force. Also, it seems that about half of the Theoretical Linguistics participants also list themselves as participants in WikiProject Linguistics. And I also agree that given the size and activity of WikiProject Languages, it should remain as a Project. Cnilep (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Support - It looks like some of these sub-projects are more or less dormant, so maybe bringing them together will build a critical mass of active editors. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, with no suggestions for improvement; sounds like you've thought this through carefully.--Miniapolis (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Support, seems very reasonable. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Support, this is in line with the current organization of other projects/taskforces on WP. --Kleinzach 12:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Support: sensible proposal. Tony (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Here are the numbers of participants for the various WikiProjects involved:

• WikiProject Linguistics: 58
• WikiProject Languages: 156
• WikiProject Writing systems: 47 active, 15 inactive
• WikiProject Phonetics: 28
• WikiProject Etymology: 9
• WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics: 9 active, 43 inactive

Of course, I am not sure how well-updated these lists are. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The active/inactive for Writing Systems is set at one year, and it was separated a couple months ago. VanIsaac_WS^contribs

I was wondering what the Phonetics, Etymology, and Theoretical Ling people have to say about it, but I would generally support contingent on their approval. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• There's also WikiProject Endangered languages, with 21 listed participants, of whom 3 have not edited Wikipedia in over a year. That could probably become a task force of WP Languages, though I suppose this isn't the place for that discussion. Angr (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved): On a side note, it's slightly less cumbersome to locate the task force at WP:WikiProject Linguistics/Theoretical and so forth (as WP:VG does); the way that MilHist does does include the task force. The "Task Force" seems a little superfluous. Just commenting though. --Izno (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and slow edit-warring

Regarding the Korean particles article, there appears to be a disagreement over writing systems being used, and the main opposition comes from a single editor who repeatedly makes reverts and refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion per WP:BRD. Is there some sort of process that I can go through regarding discussing WP:CONSENSUS with third-party editors? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a job for dispute resolution, although there needs to be more discussion there before that can happen. I would wait a day or so to see if the other editor replies to your latest post, and then take things from there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already taken it to ANI, following two more reverts today with close to little meaningful liason. The thread is at WP:ANI#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

how should we tag names?

Currently personal names are tagged with a WP languages tag. That isn't right, but WP linguistics wouldn't be right either. Should they be left alone, or is there a better tag for them? — kwami (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of searching turned up Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Does that sound like the right kind of thing? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you. — kwami (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Amerax revisited

In Feb. 2006 the article Amerax language was nominated for deletion, but due to lack of consensus, was retained. I think some of the language/linguistics-knowledgeable editors might want to take a look again though, for reasons explained on the article's talk page--but I'm not sure if deletion is actually the right way to go. At this point I'm just hoping to get other people's thoughts on this. --Miskwito (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerax language --Miskwito (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing an article about a Russian linguistics tool (Grammatica)

Hi, I've recently added a request for creating an article about Grammatica - a software application that can display stress marks and linguistics information (case, person, gender, number etc) for any word in a Russian text. Due to conflict of interest, I cannot create an article for this application, but it would be great if someone could write an article about our application. It's has some truly unique functionality and it's designed specifically for Russian language learners. It would be great if someone would be interested in writing an article about our software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Computer_science,_computing,_and_Internet#F-O 95.133.39.187 Grammatica.russian (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that different from this Grammatica? I'm not 100% sure just looking at the software homepage. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that is a different project. We are developing a tool for helping students learn Russian, while the other tools is designed for programmers. Grammatica.russian (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. The next most important thing is notability - are there multiple mentions of the Grammatica software in reliable sources that are independent of the software makers/publishers? This is the standard test for inclusion in Wikipedia, and Grammatica will need to pass it as well. I took a look at the references included in the link, and I'm afraid they don't qualify, either because the sources aren't reliable, or the mentions of the software are trivial. Let us know if you find sources that satisfy the guidelines. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

SFL task force?

Systemic functional linguistics has had very patchy input on en.WP, despite its prominence as a field of modern linguistics. The international mailing list that binds together the leading professionals and students in SFL has set up a committee to encourage subscribers to register as Wikipedians and help to build this topic on the English Wikipedia; it's a move I've been supporting, although I don't have formal qualifications in the field and count myself as merely an amateur.

SFL has grown into a significant area since the 1970s, with precursors earlier in the century. The field has had a major influence on linguistics research and teaching at universities and on school curricula in parts of the English-speaking world. Semiotic in its orientation and geared towards the analysis of spoken and written discourse, it's conducted almost entirely in relation to English (with more recent offshoots in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and German—I think I have that right).

I believe this would be an ideal time to set up a task force as a hub for attracting SFL editors into the English Wikipedia and coordinating their efforts. A task force would be likely to benefit the project as a whole and to be consistent with the aims of this wikiproject. I've volunteered to be the janitor, as it were, to ensure that the induction of SFL professionals and students who register as en.WP editors is smooth, and that they have someone to go to with questions about WP's rather complex policies, guidelines, and procedures. I'd also assist with any necessary liaison with other editors in linguistics topics, and with any interwiki opportunities that arise as the field spreads beyond English. User:Annabelle Lukin, an SFL researcher, has recently become an active editor.

Already among our SFL-related articles are:

• Michael Halliday
• Ruqaiya_Hasan
• C.M.I.M. Matthiessen
• Cohesion (linguistics) (very much an SFL perspective, which might be better as Cohesion (language) ... unsure)
• Nominal group (functional grammar), and
• Thematic equative

Many more articles need to be created, and the existing ones need expansion, editing, and cleaning up. The SFL category below lists relevant existing articles.

A major reason for creating a task force affiliated with this wikiproject is that SFL is very different in its theoretical basis and methods from other fields of linguistics and grammar, and deserves a separate point of coordination from existing organised efforts at the wikiproject. In a period in which editor numbers have levelled off, this is a chance to add to our base of skilled linguistics writers.

Would this be possible? I look forward to your advice. Tony (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure this would be possible. As the RfC above looks very likely to be passed, we will probably have four new task forces here in the next week or two - I can't see any reason why we can't have a fifth. I'm planning to make a boilerplate task force template in the style of bigger WikiProjects if/when the RfC passes, so it should be easy to do the technical part. I agree that the best plan would probably be to get the infrastructure in place and the important articles tagged, and then advertise on the major SFL mailing lists so that we can get more participators from outside. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a sandbox going, which has attracted two others already. Tony (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the task force sounds like a fine idea. Thank you, Tony, for volunteering as 'janitor'. By the way, there are several pages not under the SFL umbrella, such as Functional theories of grammar, Functional discourse grammar, Danish Functionalism, Interactional linguistics etc. that may be of interest to some editors with expertise in SFL. I wonder if there should be a broader Category:Functional linguistics or something of the sort? Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is a Category:Functionalism, which contains a small number articles from each of several fields: sociology, anthropology, architecture, philosophy, history, and linguistics (and perhaps others I don't recognize). Cnilep (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cnilep. If you don't mind, I'm pasting your two comments onto the task-force draft page in my user-space, where new recruits are likely to see them. I might add a few articles from those categories into the "Existing articles" list there. Tony (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Functional linguistics sounds like a good idea to me. It might be time to think of a few more linguistics categories as well - I have long thought there should be a Category:Second language acquisition, for example. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Strad. Could I put in a request for a hyphen in Second-language acquisition, if you can bear it? Good idea to create a cat. for this. I've created Category:Systemic functional linguistics. Tony (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh. This would be one of those places where the academic literature clashes with strictly correct punctuation. In the literature I don't think I've ever seen a hyphen used... or at least not enough for me to register it. Anyway, we should probably save this discussion for after we've got the task forces up and running. There's no great rush here, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find that second-language speaker is minority usage in terms of google hits: second-language is clearly a double adjective, and the item is ambiguous without the hyphen. Second speaker of a language? I guess there was one for Esperanto—possibly Zamenhof's wife? Harder to parse without the hyphen, especially for non-experts. Tony (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Taboo replacement?

Is there an article on tabu deformation/replacement of words? The most well-known are probably the PIE words for wolf, bear, and other animals.

There's a paragraph at Euphemism but I thought perhaps there was (should be?) more.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There also seems to be some discussion of the phenomenon in the articles Avoidance speech and Taboo against naming the dead, but I don't see any one article where all the info is discussed together. I agree there should be more info on the topic. --Miskwito (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Second language acquisition" or "second-language acquisition"?

Hi everyone, I've opened up a thread about the recent page moves from second language acquisition to second-language acquisition, and I would very much like your input. Do you think the titles of all the related articles should be hyphenated, or not? The thread is at Talk:Second-language acquisition#Hyphen or no hyphen?. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Template for non extensive etymology?

Would a template be suitable for etymology that are non-extensive and hold no large bearing upon the article relevance itself? I.e.

Quote box |quote= Witchcraft: from Old English Wiccecræft,
from Old English Wicca (Masculine) or Wicce (Feminine) "witch" + cræft "power, skill" |source=(OED)}}

Copy the above into the sandbox with the opening {{

Thoughts on a etymology template? Thanks.^D Namtar 13:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Etymology. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Assimilation (linguistics)

Could someone look at the article Assimilation (linguistics)? It's been tagged for cleanup for years but I don't have the expertise to do much about it. RJFJR (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Phonetics. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Theoretical linguistics category name

I've been going through the old WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, converting it to a task force here, and I noticed that in all the category names, "theoretical linguistics" is capitalized. This means we have "Top-importance Theoretical Linguistics articles‎", "High-importance Theoretical Linguistics articles‎", etc. I think these should be in lower case: "Top-importance theoretical linguistics articles‎", "High-importance theoretical linguistics articles‎", etc. This would also be consistent with the etymology categories. What does everyone think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like most other WikiProjects go for lowercase, though not all of them. I'd be in favor of consistent lowercase here, though I must say my level of caring about the issue is extremely low. Angr (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Importance assessment

Both WikiProject Etymology and WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics were doing their own assessments before I moved them to subdirectories of WikiProject Linguistics. Now I am facing the task of deciding how to deal with the assessments that they did, and how to integrate them with the existing WikiProject Linguistics assessments. I think it makes sense to have the quality assessments as part of the larger project, so that the new task forces don't have to worry about them. I think it would also be a good idea to keep the importance assessments as part of the task forces, as this will vary a lot between the different task force pages. I'm wondering what to do about the project-wide importance assessments, though. Should we keep them and use them alongside the task force importance assessments, or should we get rid of them and have importance assessments solely done by the task forces? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If everyone is ok with this, I'll remove the main importance parameter from Template:WikiProject Linguistics. I can't imagine having both a main parameter and a task force parameter would be useful in many circumstances, and I think the vast majority of linguistics articles will be covered by the existing task forces anyway. If there are no objections by say, the 9th of November, then I'll go ahead with the change. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a lot later than the 9th November now, but I've gone ahead and removed the importance parameter. If anyone objects, feel free to revert. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

New colour scheme

Hi everyone, what do you think of the new colour scheme? It's still looking a little bit odd with the table of contents there, but I plan on giving things a little bit better structure here, so that should get sorted out in due course. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics Tasks List

Does the template {{WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics Tasks List}} serve a purpose that could not be served by Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Theoretical? I wonder what the rationale is for having the to-do list on a separate page from the task force (formerly, the WikiProject) itself. Cnilep (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the rationale in the archives (someone wanted to transclude it in their userspace), but I'm not sure it's necessary any more. I agree that it's probably better off on the task force page, but I suppose that depends if anyone still wants to use it. I also noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Theoretical/to do the other day when I was moving the pages across, which the template is also redundant with. I think we should probably just merge them both into the task force page and see if anyone misses them (checking to make sure no-one transcribes the entire task force page into their userspace, of course). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Autmatic tagging of Applied Linguistics Task Force articles

I've finally created the Applied Linguistics Task Force that I mentioned in the RfC above. Have a look, and feel free to add improvements - there's still a lot to do. I'm thinking of submitting a request to have DodoBot tag and automatically assess articles for the task force (you can see the process here). I've created a list of categories for the bot to use to tag the articles, and I invite you to have a look through them and see if you think they are appropriate. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

SFL thing

Dr Strad, thank you for moving the page to one that is affiliated with this wikiproject. Is it to be referred to as a taskforce, or should we use some other term? And I presume it's intentional that it not have a discussion page of its own, but use this centralised one. Tony (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, both those things are really up to you, as the janitor. It's a taskforce, yes. I've used "Systemic Functional Linguistics Task Force" as the name, and I use "task force" to refer to it, but those are definitely not set in stone. Just let me know which way you prefer, and I'll change things over. The talk page situation is up to you as well. The Military History task forces all have their own talk pages, but the Philosophy task forces all redirect to the main discussion page - it's just a question of whether you want talk to be centralized or not. Although the other task force talk pages redirect here, there's no reason why some can't have their own talk pages, and I think the final decision should be with the participants of the task force themselves. If you want your own talk page, then again, just let me know and I'll sort it out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think centralised talkpages would be better, to avoid duplication problems (which is why we're here). bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. And besides which, that would allow people who aren't members of one of the task forces to still know if there's some issue or RfC or whatever associated with it that might be of interest to them. --Miskwito (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was leaning this way as well (as you can probably guess from me setting it up like this in the first place). I think the most important factor here is the sense of community we get. And the factor that determines the sense of community we get is the number of active editors we have commenting, so we should pay close attention to that. With the numbers we have now, I'd say that centralizing things is the best way to get a sense of community, and I think things would have to get a lot busier here for that equation to change. However, if the task force members want their own talk page, then I wouldn't want to be the one to deprive them of it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

CANAL-F

I've accepted this poorly written stub at AfC, but on a closer look it seems this is a pretty new test and the only significant coverage is in publications by the authors. Perhaps I've been too enthusiastic? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you did well. It's not the most written-about concept in second-language acquisition, but it appears in Rod Ellis's book The Study of Second Language Acquisition, a hefty tome covering the entire field in detail. A mention in there is enough to satisfy me that it is notable. I'll have a look at the article and clean it up a little. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Some doubt as to the nature of the Gorani language

An editor has recently changed this article to state that Gorani is not a language, but just an accent of Kurdish. This contradicts what is stated in Gorani language, but I do not know much about the subject. I figured this might be a good place to ask for more informed opinions. Thanks! LWG ^talk 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've copied this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages as well, as it seems a closer match for this request. I don't know much about the subject myself. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any more than about this than you do, but the academic references linked to from the Gorani language page seem to indicate that there's more than one "Kurdish language" and Gorani is just one of several. (For example, "The great majority of the Kurds speak a variety of the so-called Kurmanci or Sorani dialects; smaller numbers speak Gorani or Zaza. Although the latter two dialects are close relatives of the former two, they do not strictly speaking belong to the same branch of Indo-Iranian languages."). In any case "accent" wouldn't be the correct terminology to use, and the editor who added that statement didn't cite any sources anyway. --Miskwito (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Gorani is listed as a separate language by Ethnologue, which is the current custodian of the ISO language codes and so to the extent that anything (without its own army) can "officially" be a language, it is considered one and has its own code (hac). According to Ethnolgouw, it isn't even particularly closely related to the the Kurdish group of languages. The ISO codes aren't definitive, but until someone with reliable first hand knowledge and expertise disputes this, Gorani should not be referred to as simply a dialect of Kurdish.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Clipping or shortening?

We appear to have two articles on the same subject: Shortening (grammar) and Clipping (morphology). Which term is more common, as a merge target? (I'm not aware of a difference between the two). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The cited reference, Oxford Dictionaries Online, does use the term Shortenings (by the way, the WP text is a very close paraphrase of that page), but the term clipping seems to be more common in the literature. I had never heard of shortenings as a category label, though of course such forms are shortened in the ordinary-language sense of that word. Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of "shortening" in the context of word creation. In that sense, clipping is a form of shortening, as is acronymy. Henrymrx (t·c) 04:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, let me specify that when I say "clipping seems to be more common", I mean only that it is my subjective impression that clipping is more common. A survey of relevant literature – maybe textbooks or journal articles – might be instructive. Cnilep (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all good. I want to get some background before I blunder around with google book&scholar hits, and subjective impressions are more than nothing at all. Shortening (grammar) seems to overlap a little with abbreviation, although abbreviation doesn't deal at all with clipping. Would you consider clipping a form of abbreviation? One thought about the term shortening - is it possible it's been introduced to avoid confusion with Clipping (phonetics)?

We also have a redirect Short form (linguistics) which goes to abbreviation. Should that be changed to the merged article on clipping/shortening? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Merged to Clipping (morphology). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Constructed languages nominated for deletion

Portal:Constructed languages has been nominated for deletion, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Constructed languages. — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Applied Linguistics tagging update

I've submitted a request to get the Applied Linguistics Task Force articles automatically tagged by DodoBot, but EdoDodo doesn't seem to be around to run the bot, so I'm now thinking of using AnomieBOT instead. Just to recap, I'm proposing to tag all of the articles in this list of categories as being within the scope of the task force. If there are any that you don't want to be in there, go ahead and edit it, or you can let me know here. Also, if any of those categories fall within the scope of another task force, or another WikiProject altogether (like WP Biography, for example), then it would be a good idea to add it in now so that the bot can add them all in one run.

Some of the pages will be auto-assessed for things like being stubs, redirects, and disambiguation pages. You can see the full assessment possibilities in the WikiProjectTagger notice at the top of User talk:AnomieBOT. I think the default options will be fine, but if you think something else would be better, let me know.

I think the bot should replace shortcuts like {{WP Linguistics}} with the full {{WikiProject Linguistics}}, if it is going to edit the page anyway. Does that sound ok?

The bot can also add extra parameters to the project banner, based on article categories and a few other things. I think we won't need anything like this, but again, if you think of anything let me know. Similarly, if you think the bot should skip talk pages based on article categories or other factors, that is also possible. Again, you can find pointers in the WikiProjectTagger notice at the top of User talk:AnomieBOT.

Finally, if we are going to do a big batch of tagging, it would make sense to do other WP Linguistics tagging at the same time. Is there anything else that needs doing? Let me know and I'll look into it. I'll leave this note up for a week, and if we have a consensus by then I'll get Anomie to start the bot up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks fine to me. Possibly the kind of thing that needs to be done annually. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, it looks like I wrote this too soon. It looks like EdoDodo was just busy, and he started the original bot run I requested from DodoBot a couple of days ago. The articles are all tagged now - more than 2000 of them! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical proto-Indo-European

I've just noticed that Deity says "In the reconstructed and hypothetical Proto-Indo-European..." whereas Proto-Indo-European language says

The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been accepted by linguists for over a century, and reconstruction is far advanced and quite detailed.

That seems a pretty strong assertion of consensus within the relevant scientific discipline. Can someone tell me if Proto-Indo-European language is overstating the strength of scholarly consensus? If not, surely we can drop "hypothetical." I've left a note at Talk:Deity. "Hypothetical" was added to Deity in this edit in 1985, with the edit summary "PIE is less certain than was presented here." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1985?? Your watch seems to be 20 years slow. Anyway, there is definitely scientific consensus that the attested Indo-European languages are descended from a common ancestor, and there is definitely scientific agreement to refer to that common ancestor as "Proto-Indo-European". Any specific terms reconstructed in PIE are hypothetical, but the term "reconstructed" in historical linguistics already entails "hypothetical" so calling PIE "reconstructed and hypothetical" is unnecessarily redundant. The sentence currently in the article Deity, "In the reconstructed and hypothetical Proto-Indo-European, humans were described as chthonian ('earthly') as opposed to the deities which were deivos ('celestial')", is simply mistaken: chthonian is not a reconstructed PIE word at all; it's an English word derived from Ancient Greek. And deivos is a very old-fashioned spelling for a reconstructed PIE word that most scholars nowadays would spell either deiwos or deiu̯os. Angr (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you for the clear explanation. Since I know nothing about this, do you feel like correcting it, Angr? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the redundant "hypothetical" but haven't made the change to the etymology of chthonian and deivos because I couldn't support it, but someone with sources should probably see to it at some point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a while (indeed since you first asked me if I felt like correcting it), I decided to remove the whole sentence. The PIE reconstructed words for "human" and "divine" aren't really relevant to a discussion of the concept of deity and don't support the (wholly unsourced) point the paragraph appears to be trying to make. Angr (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Angr. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Shekawati

Shekawati - language or dialect? I don't know if there should be one article or two on the topic, and which title should be used in the end. Please comment at Talk:Shekhawati language D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether something is a language or a dialect is as much a political question as a linguistic one. In this case I would say that since Shekawati has an ISO 639 code, there is valid reason for calling it Shekhawati language, though as in any such case there may be political or scholarly arguments against that position. From my (quick) reading of the two pages, they appear to treat the same entity and in my opinion should be merged. Cnilep (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge tags were placed on both articles in November 2008, but no merger discussion ever took place. Moreover, the page Shekhawati dialect appears to have been created in January 2008 by copying the content of Shekhawati language, without attribution. Cnilep (talk)

I've listed the two pages at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Cnilep (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue with English Grammar

I have started a post in a Village pump page advocating for something to be done regarding the contensious issue of team and band names being treated as plurals ("Chelsea are a football team"). Could someone knowledgeble in grammar give their opinion there? Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Preterite

Preterite has had some strange additions/modifications lately, some of which I have reverted. Could someone check the changes to the French table [3] and the translation of Spanish "Comí todo el día." as "I ate all day long."? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How to name language history articles

Looking at Category:Language histories, I'm seeing some articles titled like History of French, and others like History of the Welsh language. Can we not make them uniform? My preference would be for the shorter form, since I don't think "History of Welsh" could possibly be taken to mean anything other than the history of the language.--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the need for uniformity and also prefer the shorter wording. There seems to be no ambiguity in it. Tony (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I also prefer the shorter wording but don't see any particular need for uniformity. As long as History of the French language and History of Welsh are both redirects (and likewise for other languages) that's good enough for me. Angr (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think we need to worry too much about uniform titles across hundreds of articles; that provides little benefit to readers. Also, as there are lots of cases where language overlaps with ethnic/nationalist disputes &c and hence serious problems of neutrality and scope, there could be a few articles where a slightly different title would be appropriate. But apart from that, if somebody really wants to spend their time moving lots of articles, I don't object. bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gaps in Aspect

I see at least two places where work on aspect is needed. First, the current article on Lexical Aspect is in need of several additions, not least of which is how it relates to second language acquisition. For example, the Aspect Hypothesis (as covered by work of Andersen, Bardovi-Harlig, Shirai, and others) is not mentioned at all, and yet this is a fairly large area of SLA research. Nishi and Shirai's (2007) work on the non-universality of Lexical Aspect and cross-linguistic differences in the lexicalization of concepts would also help to make the discussion less Anglo-centric and more complete.

The current article on "resultatives" mentions only resultative noun complements, and only in English at that. Resultative meanings as their are related to aspect, as in Chinese (zhe), Korean (a iss- / go iss-), Japanese (-te i(ru)) is not covered at all, either there or in the larger section on Grammatical Aspects. Right now, imperfective aspect is broken down into progressive and inchoative meanings, but resultative is currently missing and needs attention. (I'm not sure how it should be classified, though, since it is also considered a part of perfective aspect in some languages)

Amieni (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amieni! It's good to see someone else here who is interested in second language acquisition. If you see something that needs changing, I encourage you to be bold and change it yourself. We don't have a lot of editors active in linguistics, and even fewer who are interested in applied linguistics or second language acquisition, so if you are willing to put the effort in, these articles could be your playground (within reason, of course). I'm willing to help out with work on Aspect, but I'm not exactly an expert. How about you put your name down at the Applied Linguistics Task Force and we work on adding these things to the To Do list there? Let me know if you have any questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

templatizing

The article Assimilation (linguistics) has a rather long 'see also' section that might make a good template to be added to the bottom of this and related articles. (Or it might be better just to significantly reduce the size of the see also section.) Can someone suggest whether such a footer template should be made and applied? RJFJR (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd remove anything from the See also section that's already mentioned in the body of the article as well as anything listed on the {{Sound change}} template. Angr (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute at Constituent (linguistics)

There is a dispute at Constituent (linguistics) over removal/retention of a section (discussion at Talk:Constituent (linguistics)#Phrase structure, dependency structure). Third party opinions are needed. -- Donald Albury 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)