Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics

 

Me and @Phlsph7 had a brief discussion regarding this diagram, which seems to be useful in the broadest sense but is also more erroneous than it has to be. Obviously, each of these fields is not neatly contained, but that is not a problem in itself in my mind, that's the nature of science. While phone → phoneme → morpheme, word → phrase, sentence at the very least is "true enough" for a visual aid, what is the direct analogy between syntax and semantics? In what sense is the Syntax–semantics interface expressed as one being contained by the other?

Also, I believe non-phonocentric approaches should be more represented if possible.

I think this sort of diagram is obviously appealing, but it needs another look. It is used on many important linguistics articles, so I think we seriously should consider redesigning or replacing it. Remsense诉 14:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for raising this point here. The bottom half of the diagram about the different parts of language has some issues but seems to do better than the top half of the diagram about the different fields of inquiry. For example, a sentence is made up of words but morphology is not generally considered a subdiscipline of syntax. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would very much support removing this diagram. It's misleading, to the extent that it makes any sense at all. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think some sort of visual aid like this is feasible, but it should be correct. Do you think there's any hope of such a presentation? Remsense诉 15:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of how I would structure such a diagram. But the boundlessness of the human creative spirit always gives me hope :) Botterweg14 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you feel that the inner four rings are "true enough" in the sense I've described, or is any hierarchical nature a non-starter? Remsense诉 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The hierarchical structure lives within (some) of the subfields, not between them. Combining words gives you a phrase, but combining phones doesn't give you a phoneme. So I think the minimally misleading approach would be to represent it as a sound vs form vs meaning split, while lumping together phonetics/phonology and semantics/pragmatics. That would compromise on informativeness rather than truthfulness. Ranking the Maxim of Quality above the Maxim of Quantity, if you will. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A couple additional thoughts. To be less phonocentric, the diagram could say "sound/sign" or "externalization" rather than "sound", though it might be worth asking around further to see if there's a better term. Morphology could be lumped with syntax, though I would argue for leaving it out entirely since people generally split it into morphophonology/morphosyntax/morphosemantics these days, at least within theoretical linguistics. (Since you haven't mentioned psycholinguistics or sociolinguistics, I'm assuming you're thinking of a diagram with a relatively narrow scope.) Botterweg14 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excellent guidance, thank you very much. I'll let this thread know if I come up with anything. Remsense诉 18:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also find the diagram problematic. You can certainly draw the hierarchy in a good old structuralist vibe up to syntax. But semantics doesn't fit into the scheme; staying in the naive picture, you can depart from morphology either to syntax or to semantics. Also the choice of pragmatics as "outer" ring is a bit arbitrary. You could just as well have discourse as the outer level. –Austronesier (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the last part of this comment- the "discourse" is, in a sense, the fundamental unit of analysis of pragmatics, and this is reflected in the diagram by the presence of the string "meaning in context of discourse" in the bottom half of the ring whose top half contains the string "pragmatics". Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why not just phoneme? For a while, Stokoe tried to push chireme and then we would've needed a term that encompassed both, but it didn't stick, and sign language linguists pretty much just use phoneme now for both, and so could we. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

hm. I'm still pushing things around on paper for this, but I think including a general, agreeable, but common word like "externalization" would be a good thing for our crucial audience: people who have acquired an interest, but are still trying to get their bearings for what anything in linguistics is. Remsense诉 09:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not entirely sure I follow. Are you saying, externalization is better for the learners, because phoneme will make their eyes glaze over? But we're okay with pragmatics and morphology? I think a bit o' jargon is tickety-boo in a jargony thingie like all of linguistics painted onto a Frisbee. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think jargon is necessary, and one of the most difficult things to do in technical writing (or graphing) is to introduce all of it in the right order. Remsense诉 09:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Phonetics is primarily concerned with phones, not phonemes. Nardog (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the original sound/sign comment wasn't an exact matchup, as the analog of phone isn't a sign, but a parametric unit (handshape, location, movement, etc.) Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Articulations" maybe? That seems to be used in sign language literature (like "phoneme"). Nardog (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Personally I feel that while the way the diagram presents relations between the rings is problematic, for the reasons discussed already, the relations it expresses within a ring- that is, between the text in the top part of the ring and in the bottom part- is true and should be included in Wikipedia articles.

What if we converted this into a table, where the left column consists of linguistic disciplines, and the right consists of the fundamental unit of analysis in that discipline? For example, the discourse is the fundamental unit of pragmatics, as the morpheme is the fundamental unit of morphology. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean, any attempt at a diagram of linguistics and/or its units is going to be regarded as erroneous or inadequate somewhere by some linguist. It's not that great, but there can be no "perfect" diagram of linguistics. I suppose it's right that the combination of meaning-side as just "another" layer further out is a different metaphor or logic than "a morpheme is bigger than a phoneme" of the iner layers. Removing it is no big deal to a large extent, and it's probably mostly or only relevant in cases where different conceptualisations of linguistics is discussed. But I think it would be even better if such discussions also had alternate visualisations to the extent possible (which I suppose is in line with what Botterweg14 is proposing). In boring conclusion, different articles call for different visuals and one visual should not be overused, but I don't see how useful it is to discuss one visual's removal without discussing the removal 'from where'. Instead of replacing it, creating multiple alternatives would be great. Disclaimer: I used to have this picture as my desktop background in high school! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This discussion seems to have run stale, but I think there's some more thoughts to be thunk: I believe it's really useful for Wikipedia to have some sort of diagram for this "kind of thing" (showing the relationships between linguistic structure and fields of study). It's hard enough to illustrate most linguistics articles as-is, and this is a good sort of diagram in principle.

I suggest that we perhaps focus less on the fields of study and more on the structure; the image is called "Major levels of linguistic structure", after all. We could, uncontroversially I think, have some sort of hierarchical diagram (coencentric circles or a pyramid or something) in the order sounds, phonemes, morphemes, and phrases/sentences. Then, somewhere else in the image (think a thought cloud or something), a label for "meaning" (this could be split into "literal meaning" and "meaning in context"). If we do want to connect these linguistic units to their respective fields of study, I could see simple labels ("Phonetics", "Phonology",...) with lines/arrows drawn to the parts of language they study working nicely. I'd also like to note that in my introductory linguistics class, a visiting professor from Gallaudet had this image on a slide and critiqued it briefly, for many of the same reasons being brought up here - I'm glad we're workshopping it! AviationFreak💬 04:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

He has been uploading sound files as illustrations for various exotic sounds. I ran across his recording at Voiceless alveolar tap and flap and I really don't think that what he is pronouncing there is a voiceless alveolar tap or flap (if you are wondering why, you can see my more specific comment on the talk page of that article). As I look through his other uploads (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Voiceless_velar_nasal.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_velar_trill.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_palatal_nasal.ogg), I find many of them unconvincing, too (again, I've left comments on their discussion pages, in case someone is wondering what I don't like about them). I feel far from equipped to judge all of his uploads, as many of the sounds are rather obscure, but my impressions from the ones I can judge with some degree of certainty don't make me very confident about the ones I can't. It looks to me as if he simply overestimates his pronunciation skills - both his ability to control what his speech organs are doing and his ability to correctly categorise by ear the sounds that he ends up producing. This results essentially in misinformation. I am not sure by what procedure such a problem is supposed to be solved on Wikipedia - there is no way to apply the verifiability policy in such a case, so I suppose that it's just something to be solved through consensus. I am just leaving this note for you people who are more involved in the phonetics articles on Wikipedia and I hope you can work out how to react to such a situation. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually working on fixing a bunch of them at the moment. Eshaan011 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

yeah i think [ɾ̥] should sound more like the ⟨t⟩ in merriam-webster's pronunciation of latter Brawlio (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have started a new discussion at the Technical Village Pump about developing the functionality for cross-referenceable running example numbers. The idea being that Wikipedia could have a system sort of like sort of \ex, \label{}, and \ref{} in LaTeX. I know the absence of this feature has been an annoyance for editors in this topic area for quite some time, so I thought I would link the discussion here in case anybody wanted to chime in. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{rfc|lang|style}}

Single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate phonemes. Our transcription system for English (cf. Help:IPA/English, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation) does not use phonemes, but diaphonemes. Nonetheless, we are enclosing the transcriptions in single slashes (mainly through {{IPAc-en}}, e.g. /ˈwʊstər/). This non-standard use of single slashes confuses readers and editors alike and regularly leads to disputes, for instance the recent edit war in Richard D'Oyly Carte.

What could we do?

1. We could stop the non-standard use of the single slashes by using a different delimiter to enclose our diaphonemic transcriptions, preferrably a delimiter used outside of Wikipedia such as double slashes. A transcription might look as follows: //ˈwʊstər//.
2. We could keep the single slashes and change our transcription system to be phonemic, thus restoring the standard meaning of the single slashes.
3. We could do nothing and keep our non-standard use of the single slashes to enclose diaphonemes.

This request for comment is a follow-up to the recent bold replacement of the single slashes by the DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR ⫽. It was soon reverted after protest on Template talk:IPAc-en#What's with the double slashes? There had been a previous consensus on this page to use double slashes, cf. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation/Archive 11#Distinction between varieties of English. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@J. 'mach' wust: Your statement is neither neutral nor brief. Your use of "standard" and "non-standard" is highly loaded, and you seem to have taken this opportunity to sneak in the option of making the diaphonemic key not diaphonemic. Though I don't discount the option of creating new keys for different varieties of English coexisting with the diaphonemic key, especially once automatic audio generation becomes available, making the diaphonemic key phonemic is such a tall order I don't even know how it could be done. Let's focus on the delimiters. Nardog (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As you know, other editors have immediately questioned the diaphonemic transcription system upon seeing the double slashes. That is why I thought it must be mentioned. But since you don’t like it, I will reword. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our transcription system for English (H:IPAE) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its diaphonemic transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are phonemic. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? --mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I support the change to double slashes, but I'm afraid that this won't be much more than a cosmetic change. Sol505000 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Weak support using double slashes. The opposition to the change highlights the mistaken perception that our English IPA is the same thing as phonemic transcriptions you see in dictionaries. Different delimiters would at least signal readers that it's a different type of representation. That they wouldn't know exactly what it means is irrelevant for me because, let's face it, most people don't even know the difference between [ ] and / /, but we make the distinction anyway because it's contextually important. Phoneme vs diaphoneme is also important, as the same notation can be sensible as a diaphonemic one but not as a phonemic one and vice versa. Nardog (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• ⫽...⫽ would be technically correct, if we aspire to precision. It's unfamiliar to most people, though, and so may be problematic if we aspire to practical accessibility. (Though, as Nardog remarked /.../ is probably also unfamiliar to most of our readers.) I don't have an opinion either way (for now at least), because of the social dimension. But ideally we should use ⫽...⫽.

When I first saw it, I thought it was a template coding error. When I realized it was intentional, I wondered if it would create a lot of drama, then forgot about it.

BTW, Usonian dictionaries also use a diaphonemic system, though without the IPA. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support double slashes //…//. Sure, non-linguists will not know about these delimiters at all. But I imagine that virtually all persons with at least some training in linguistics will know about the convention that single slashes indicate a phonemic transcription. I believe this convention is so well-established that it can be called a standard, which means we are using the single slashes in a non-standard way. In my opinion, we should be careful to avoid non-standard symbols since they are confusing to readers and editors alike. Using double slashes would make the diaphonemic nature of our transcription system much more visible. While that might lead to increased discussion, we have chosen this diaphonemic transcription system, so we should be able to justify our choice even if (or when) it becomes more visible.

Technically, I believe that double slashes (two slashes, //tɛst//) would be the best choice. I do not know the reasons in favour of using U+2AFD ⫽ DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR instead (⫽tɛst⫽), whereas lacking font support is an important reason against. Regarding the other delimiters mentioned in Diaphoneme#Representation, exclamation marks or braces (!tɛst!, {tɛst}), I believe they are less suited because they have been used even less and because they resemble less the well-known single slashes. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is standard. The IPA ''Handbook'' defines square brackets as "begin/end phonetic transcription" and the solidus as "begin/end phonemic transcription" (e.g. p. 175), though on p. 27 they say, "conventionally ... symbols for the phonemes of a language are placed within oblique lines: / /."

I suspect the reason for preferring U+2AFD is that it takes up much less space (depending on the font) and doesn't look like an HTML hack. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Weak support: The double slashes are a quite technical usage in linguistics, however, they look close enough to single slashes by laypersons that I think the latter group will simply pay attention to the actual letters and the tooltip, with the slashes avoiding notice or comment by most. I think the larger problem, however, is: do we want to keep rehashing the same type of battles, like at the talk pages of Richard D'Oyly Carte or Melbourne? (See this archived talk from last year on this very topic.) A solution to this might be to make the tone of MOS:RHOTIC a bit more assertive, perhaps. Wolfdog (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We might also make it more permissive, following the example of MOS:ENGVAR, which allows for moderate regional variation. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you expand on that a bit? I think the focus here is, on a page like Richard D'Oyly Carte or Melbourne, we already have a system that works quite well, Wikipedia-wide, to provide a singular pronunciation useful across most English dialects. Why would we undermine that by making the wording more permissive? (Perhaps an example or two could be helpful.) Wolfdog (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The focus of this discussion should be on the delimiters. I don’t know whether our system works so well when we keep rehashing the same type of battles. I believe marking more overtly that our transcriptions are diaphonemic will help. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

One way to make the diaphonemic nature clearer is to use superscript letters like ⟨ʳ⟩, as discussed here. I said we would have to make sure it's not used before a vowel, but now that I think about it, that can be automated in Lua. Nardog (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• My primary reason for weakly opposing the use of double solidus is its poor font support and being needlessly distracting in the lead of many articles.

But the idea that it would be somehow more correct or better aligned with some standard than single slashes just because the transcriptions are diaphonemic rather than phonemic seems mistaken in the first place. The distinction between [...] and /.../ is a convention well established. The distinction between /.../ and ⫽...⫽ is not. Using the latter without further explanation tells the reader nothing beyond that it's something different from the usual phonemic transcription. However, what is usual differs widely between readers as there is no single "standard" at all (and some dictionaries do use diaphonemic spelling, although usually not IPA). From the reader's point of view, lay or not, there is simply no need to distinguish diaphonemes from phonemes in the lead of an article that has nothing to do with phonetics or phonology. It wouldn't be wrong to use double slashes, but IMO, the single ones are just as appropriate in the first place.

The previous consensus seemed to operate under the impression that double slashes would, thanks to their unfamiliarity, discourage editors from assuming they know what they are doing before reading the MOS and help pages. I don't believe this would be the case. – MwGamera (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that U+2AFD ⫽ DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR would be a poor choice. That is why I would prefer double slashes //…//.

I disagree with your point of view that we there is no need to distinguish between diaphonemes and phonemes. Such a need arises regularly around the diaphoneme //r//, when editors insist that phonemic transcriptions in articles tied to non-rhotic varieties of English (e.g. Richard D'Oyly Carte or Melbourne) should not include the /r/. For these cases, it makes a real difference when we explicitly indicate that it’s something different from the usual phonemic transcription. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Americans don't seem to care that we transcribe British vowel distinctions that they don't make. But //r// has been a chronic objection.

Merriam-Webster uses \back slashes\, or at least they used to. I don't know if that's an intentional distinction.

There's also the vertical pipe. I wouldn't want curly brackets; that's too much like set theory, and IMO appropriate when delimiting sets of phonemes that constitute archiphonemes, but not something like this.

MwGamera, the distinction between /.../ and something is well established. There's just variation on what that something should be. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps my wording could be clearer regarding the need to distinguish it. There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from because no phonemic one is provided alongside it in these articles. Thus, only one kind of delimiter is needed, and a single slash is a valid choice for diaphonemic transcription. There is nothing wrong with our current practice.

Of course, editors need to be familiar with the conventions used, and this includes the fact we use diaphonemes. But double slashes aren't unambiguous in denoting that, and I wouldn't expect changing delimiter to make these discussions any shorter. – MwGamera (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from: I believe there is. It is a distinction between the meaning we intend to communicate on the sender side (‘these are diaphonemes’) and the meaning a linguistically informed reader will understand on the receiver side (‘these are phonemes’). When a reader misunderstands the single slashes to mean ‘these are phonemes’, it is not their fault on the receiver side – ‘these are phonemes’ is the well-established meaning of single slashes. Instead, it is our fault on the sender side – we should have chosen a different delimiter that does not convey the meaning ‘these are phonemes’. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support double slashes. It's technical indeed, but I think we should avoid using single-slashes in a nonstandard way. Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose ⫽…⫽ (solidus) – No strong opinion on /…/ or //…// but some reservations and questions:
  • IPAc-EN is on 50,000 pages. There may be a gap between what some Project users think Wiki's English IPA usage is/should be, and how it's actually being used. (E.g. cases where use was intended as phonemic transcription, not diaphonemic). Samples of some articles' usage should be examined to check that, before we make large changes that may cause some (other) errors. I believe User:Nardog alluded to something similar (7 July), "I've replaced {{IPA|/.../}} in the [Template] Key section where they were unambiguously referring to diaphonemes rather than phonemes as far as I could find, but it can be ambiguous sometimes. (E.g. should it be "/A/ is merged with /B/ in accent X", "⫽A⫽ is merged with /B/ in accent X", or "⫽A⫽ is merged with ⫽B⫽ in accent X"?)"
  • It's a mistake to rush such widespread changes in response to edit wars or incivility on one or two articles.
  • User:Adumbrativus said (8 July), "Suddenly changing only this template [IPAc-EN] means that such pages now use a combination of / and ⫽, in a haphazard way which confusingly appears as if the use of the two notations is contrastive but is actually unintended."
  • Exactly how many Templates would be affected by this? Template:IPAc-en/Module:IPAc-en obviously, but which others?
  • ⫽…⫽ would have several drawbacks (U+2AFD ⫽ DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR) for the technical and aesthetic reasons given last week; it would also be preferable to use symbols that display universally. - Thanks, 1RightSider (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose changing to double slashes, mostly per mwgamera, but also I want to add that it is very unlikely that changing to double slashes will reduce conflict related to non-rhotic pronunciations, like at Richard D'Oyly Carte or Melbourne. It seems silly to me to imagine that a person who was going to complain about the /r/ will see that there are double slashes instead of single slashes and think "oh, of course, it's a diaphonemic transcription!". No, they will still object and the response will still have to be "Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic system, see Help:IPA/English" etc.

I also want to reiterate the comment by Adumbrativus, that some articles use a mix of various templates and non-templated transcriptions, and that changing only the template will introduce distinctions that were never intended. This is not as simple as changing a template; if the change is made, someone will have to go through every article that has (dia)phonemic transcriptions and manually fix any conflicts that arise. For example, Cot–caught merger includes the sentence: "The phonemes involved in the cot–caught merger, the low back vowels, are typically represented in the International Phonetic Alphabet as /ɒ/ and /ɔ/, respectively (or, in North America, when co-occurring with the father–bother merger, as /ɑ/ and /ɔ/)." To be fully correct, I think you would need to replace only the first two uses with double slashes, but not the second two. (Note that the mixing of different slashes would probably be confusing to many readers.) This would be a lot of work and would involve some difficult judgement calls. --Un assiolo (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ in those sentences are phonemes, not diaphonemes, as evident from the fact it says "The phonemes are" and /ɔ/ lacks a length mark. Nardog (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects. This just demonstrates the difficulty involved in introducing this distinction. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Un assiolo: [T]hey will still object and the response will still have to be "Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic system […]." I believe the benefit of using double slashes would be that they could no longer answer with a big “but Wikipedia explicitly indicates that the transcriptions are phonemic by enclosing them in single slashes.” --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Transitioning to any convention is going to be a headache, but I'm starting to think more and more that double solidus is a good idea.

As for the examples when it's unclear how we would fix them, that shows that they're either inherently ambiguous or poorly written. Perhaps explicitly using diaphonemic delimiters will ferret out other badly thought out transcriptions in our articles. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do people currently answer with that? The distinction between phonemic and diaphonemic transcriptions is incredibly obscure. And a transcription with an /r/ could be interpreted as phonemic even for non-rhotic varieties as long as you assume there is an underlying /r/ that is not realized except in certain contexts. The proposal to make it a superscript or enclose it in parentheses makes this more explicit. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can do both. Nardog has recommended the superscript above (perhaps you've already seen). As for The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects, the text is merely talking about the symbols and how they're commonly used to represent a certain phoneme (across a variety of dictionaries, for instance). Wolfdog (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

But they don't represent a phoneme, they represent a diaphoneme. Any system using /ɒ/ for General American is automatically diaphonemic. And if it's talking about symbols, then I guess technically they should be angle brackets (see International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and transcription delimiters). But that's getting off topic. I am really curious how people in favour of double slashes would handle this situation. Is anyone in favour of mixing double and single slashes? --Un assiolo (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if we mix phonemic and diaphonemic transcription, just as if we were to mix phonemic and morphophonemic transcription, which is a rather common occurrence. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the Cot–caught merger page, I see no claim that there is a /ɒ/ phoneme in General American. What it says is that General American has /ɑ/ instead. The wording “in North America, when co-occurring with the father–bother merger,” is misleading. I have made a clarification about the phonemes involved in North America. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I don't have much more to add right now, but I agree with mwgamera's analysis and I am inclined to oppose. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• So what happened here? The RfC ended without being closed? Can that happen? What do we do now? --Un assiolo (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

(In a perfect world, I would post this on WikiProject Writing systems, but I'll just drop a redirect there instead.)

Here are the most important articles about writing, by my estimation: Writing, Literacy, Writing system, History of writing, Written language. Grapheme, Glyph.

While the existence of Writing system has likely kept others over the last 20 years from asking this question, I think we need to sort out a proper article for "the study of writing systems". There are presently two underdeveloped articles that seem to be coterminous in having this scope: Graphemics and Grammatology. From everything I've read, if we are to decide what name to use, these two plus Grapholinguistics are our viable options for an article title.   Disregarding site policy, "grapholinguistics" is my clear personal preference: it is a fairly new term—though there seems to be considerable recent work advocating and employing it, though much of it in German (Schriftlinguistik). Sadly for me and my cause, If we go purely by ngrams it doesn't even chart—again, this would seem to be biased against post-2019 work using "grapholinguistics", but it's still a tough case for me to make. Even so, I think I'd have to argue it'd be the best, most natural and recognizable for readers—"graphemics" may not reliably indicate a scope wide or narrow like "writing"; "grammatology" will make most think of grammar, and a smaller minority think mostly of Derrida. But I really just want a clear mandate one way or another. Remsense诉 08:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason not to call the main page "Study of writing systems"? If the term is that nebulous and/or neither term dominates the literature, it seems reasonable to me that we would call the main page something extremely obvious and maybe distinguish the nuances of "grammatology" or "graphemics" either with their own sections, in a terminology section, or with an "also known as" splice in the lede, whichever is most appropriate. I don't really have any policy to cite (mostly out of ignorance), but this seems at least like an option to consider. It also seems like "graphology" is an option, looking at the Graphemics page. All in all, of the ones you've picked, I think "Graphemics" is likely the best candidate, given the possibility of confusion with grammar and Derrida. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Study of writing systems

I pondered this too, but it just happens to be quite unlike most other article titles.

graphology

Unfortunately not: graphology is taken by a much narrower field, much to my consternation. Remsense诉 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then I would probably just stick with Graphemics as the main one then. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Study of writing systems" seems reasonable. We don't need to use a technical term; we generally do so because it dominates the literature. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't think we should be obscure when the only purpose is to use technical jargon for the sake of technical jargon.

Though, "study of writing systems" would presumably include paleography, which "graphemics" would not. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My primary reason for preferring "grapholinguistics" is because it seems more likely to scan to the average reader, given corresponding subfields almost always end in "linguistics", either as one word or otherwise. Remsense诉 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would "grapholinguistics" include reconstructing an ancient language from its writing system? That wouldn't be covered by "graphemics", which is the study of the writing system itself. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neef defines it as the linguistic subdiscipline dealing with the scientific study of all aspects of written language.^[1] I think that broad definition makes sense—it doesn't bother me that there's overlap with palaeography; there's plenty of overlap between subfields linguistics and with adjacent disciplines. Remsense诉 01:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn’t this just at some level epigraphy and its adjacent disciplines like palaeography? I’d probably just use epigraphy here in casual conversation, but that’s obviously imprecise. I agree with @Kwami that it feels like a jargon neologism for the sake of a jargon neologism creates more confusion that it would resolve. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Epigraphy is the study of inscriptions. Both it and palaeography are inherently historically-minded disciplines. This is the study of written language as a modality like speech and signing. Study of this kind has been published since the 80s, and I think categorization as jargon just seems ill-informed. Remsense诉 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

But at some point the study of writing systems, in a historical context, does become pretty exclusively the study of inscriptions. I did misunderstand a bit of what you were saying, but I thought you were actually grasping for a new term here, sorry. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I hope I haven't been unclear in general: if anyone else has questions about what I'm talking about here, please let me know.

Also, it might help to peruse Meletis, Dimitrios; Dürscheid, Christa (2022). Writing Systems and Their Use: An Overview of Grapholinguistics. Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 369. De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110757835. ISBN 978-3-110-75777-4—as well as the sources it cites to get a better grasp on what is being studied here and why I think this should likely be reflected onwiki. Remsense诉 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Halliday and Matthiessen (Halliday's introduction to functional linguistics, 2014) use the term graphology, opposing phonology, for both synchronic and diachronic studies of 'writing'. However, one can also say study of writing and study of sounding (like many researchers do when telling the non-initiated what they do). In my honest opinion, we should stop the practice of searchig for Greek-origin morphemes to name new field of science and start glossing more frequently traditional terminology as in 'he is a cardiologist, a heart specialist.' In the end, I find no reason for science to be communicated systematically by words that no one uses in their daily lives. – Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not to seem overly partisan, but I've just picked up The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography (2023): despite the title it seems to be a rather general reference work in this vein, and it 1) admits there is and presently cannot be a high degree of consistency among terminology used by its contributors, and 2) "grapholinguistics" nonetheless seems to pop up for the inclusive sense of "linguistic study of writing" in multiple chapters, more than "graphemics" does.

From its introduction:

Remsense诉 08:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good work! With these examples of use, I think grapholinguistics is very reasonable (and they also show that there is something to write in the article). I had a look at the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems (Coulmas 1999) some time ago, which doesn't contain grapholinguistics, but describe some of the other proposals in ways unfit for what we're talking about here. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I likewise tentatively suggest that we generally work within what seems to be the nascent framework of this self-describedly emerging field. This would include adjusting the scope of Graphemics to reflect the "subfield" of grapholinguistics akin to phonology within the study of speech—i.e. the study of graphemes, with graphetics likewise reflecting the study of glyphs à la phonetics for phones. Remsense诉 16:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I still crave others' input (of course), but as I've continued to survey the recent literature I think the above plan (Grapholinguistics as the top-level field, with graphemics adjusted in scope as to be roughly analogous to the scope of phonology within the study of speech) is the best reflection of the field. I've started a draft article, and of course I invite people to contribute if they fancy. Remsense诉 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If no one has outstanding objections, once I've finished a self-standing draft my plan is to

1. Make Grapholinguistics the top-level article, incorporating content from Graphemics and Grammatology
2. In line with Meletis & Dürscheid (2022), move Graphemics ⇒ Graphematics (i.e. as the subfield studying emic units, like graphemes, orthographic words, and punctuation)
3. Redirect Graphemics → Grapholinguistics
4. Redirect Grammatology → Grapholinguistics § Derrida and grammatology (or equivalent)

Remsense诉 04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Kwamikagami, @Warrenmck, @Daniel Couto Vale, and @ThaesOfereode as potential (welcome) objectors, as those who had concerns above while I was doing my research. Remsense诉 04:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In English, the term for 'the study of writing systems' in functional linguistics is Graphology (grapho = writing system; logy = study) and it opposes Phonology. In German, we tend to place any subject of a field as a modifier of the field like "Schriftlinguistik", "Atomphysik", "Kernphysik", "Biochemie", but in English the common practice is to reserve this slot for types of research (applied vs basic linguistics), realisation (psycho- vs neuro- vs socio-linguistics) and stratal viewpoint (functional vs formal linguistics). Within linguistics, the endings 'logy' and 'tics' are preferred for the subjects. In German, we used to use an analogous suffix for that: namely, "-lehre" as in "Wortlehre", "Lautlehre", "Schriftlehre" and so on. In English, there is one single exception for that rule: "grammar" which is both the composition and the study of composition (a.k.a. "grammatics" if one wants to be pedantic). Therefore, generative grammar is the generative formal study of grammar and systemic functional grammar is the systemic functional study of grammar. So I'd recommend we stick with common practice in English and analogy to other terms that already exist in English instead of projecting German word composition onto English grammar. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said above, "graphology" in common parlance is essentially already taken by the handwriting-analysis pseudoscience. The schema above, to the best of my ability, seems to reflect the emerging hierarchy of usage in recent English-language literature. Remsense诉 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What about the option of using the term 'Graphology', which is the one used in actual research, articles and books? We can always start the article on 'Graphology' with a pointer to the "Writing-analysis (pseudoscience)" in case someone is searching for it.

IMHO, we should give precedence to science over pseudoscience, fade, and religion. "Force" should be described as a physical phenomenon and not as in 'I believe in a superior force'. "Vibration" should be described as a physical phenomenon and not as in 'You are a high vibration person'. "Archetype" should be described as a literary phenomenon and not as in 'I unleashed the Cleopatra archetype'.

In other harsher words, if a group of unemployed workers decides to sell bullshit such as "vibration therapy", "direction to archetype" and "handwriting analysis", we should not let their misuses of actual scientific terms become the main article for the terms they misused. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not much of the research I've read really gives prominence to graphology: could you point me to any? I guess the point I'm making is that the predominant English-language use of graphology has consciously motivated the scholars I've read to use other terms:

Remsense诉 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't this suggest that Graphemics could also be a disambiguation page (between Graphematics and Grapholinguistics)? (not that I have strong feelings about it) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but that seems less immediately useful than a redirect + hatnote, given there are two destinations. Remsense诉 12:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, that's right. I'm sorry but I think something weird has happened with the placement of stuff after this thread... //Replayful (talk | contribs) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having been poking around languages of Africa more recently, one phenomenon that sticks out to me is frequent reference to unpublished works by Roger Blench, maybe especially in various classification sections. For one example just now, Chadic languages refers to his 2006 ms. on Afroasiatic classification, and relatively prominently advanced (now edited down by me) a claim about Kujarge language possibly being Chadic based on nothing but one presentation of his. Has anyone else been paying attention to this phenomenon? I can start listing more examples if this does not ring a bell for others. Less common outside of Africa I think, but I've seen other examples too.

The issue is of course that none of these can be flat-out presumed to be WP:RS. Some of these even includes drafts that come with explicit requests for them to not be cited without permission! Is there some backstory here, where there has been discussion on which of them might be reliable, and/or where some editor has actually asked for permission to cite these? Or is all of this just a bad habit of citing easily web-accessible documents in lieu of looking up actual published works on the topic? He is a linguist with very diverse interests; WP:EXPERTSPS could apply at times but I think at most to some areas where he has done substantial work (languages of Nigeria maybe foremost) — on many other topics he has a habit of advancing audacious novel or minority views, which of course might lead to somewhere eventually, but already citing them prominently across Wikipedia sure seems like WP:UNDUE weight. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tropylium: Yes, this phenomenon also has crossed my path in articles about languages of SE Asia and Oceania. I have trimmed and thrown out quite a lot of material based on citations of Blench's works per WPUNDUE. Unlike his work about languages of Africa, his unpublished (and also published) papers about let's say Austro-Tai, Enggano or Palauan have little impact in the field and are rarely cited (his Enggano paper is mostly cited – if ever – as the flop it is; see also my slightly caustic Wikivoice assessment in the second paragraph of Enggano language). I also tried to track where all these citations had come from and found out that much of it was the work of an editor who openly pushed for the uninhibited use of open-access material. Amateur linguists seem to have a faible for certain authors, next to Blench, late Sasha Vovin is also on the top list of language fan kids. Btw, said editor who dumped all the Blench stuff in Austronesian-related articles was blocked in 2019 for allegedly being involved in an undisclosed paid editing case. –Austronesier (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm seeking some guidance in working with more technical articles where secondary sources may not be readily available. On a topic like poverty of the stimulus, for instance, there just isn't much outside of research papers that discusses it. This creates problems for sourcing even pretty basic claims: for instance, that article states that Noam Chomsky coined the term "poverty of the stimulus" in 1980. It's definitely verifiable via a citation to Rules and Representations that Chomsky was using the term in 1980, but not that that was its first instance (i.e., "coining"). While I believe the article's claim to be true, I can't see a good way of sourcing it that doesn't run afoul of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I worry that in the course of trying to improve the PoS article or others like it, I will run into lots of other similar cases where the lack of significant secondary sourcing creates problems for verifying pretty basic claims (it's a shame that the news doesn't cover linguistics research!). How have other editors dealt with this in the past? Is there a good way of approaching this problem? AviationFreak💬 13:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

With any claim like this about history of science / scholarship, what you're dealing with here seems indeed like original research; but then even without secondary sources, also primary sources might be findable, that is say papers that assert "…poverty of the stimulus, as first introduced by Chomsky (19XX)…". Views like these should be attributed of course, especially if they're only in passing. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I concur with this comment, but wanted to add that there are sources about the history of linguistics which can be useful in these kinds of moments. You could take a peek at work by Randy Allen Harris and Frederick Newmeyer to see if there are any useful citations there. Botterweg14 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The best secondary sources for these kinds of topics are handbook articles, scholarly encyclopedia articles, and their kin. For instance in the case you mention, Lidz and Lasnik have this article in the Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences has this, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this. When these kinds of sources are sparse, I have sometimes used advanced textbooks, though one has to be careful since even advanced textbooks may oversimplify or make pedagogical choices that could mislead out of context. Also worth noting that research articles can be secondary sources when they present a synthesis of earlier work (e.g. this) though these kinds of articles are likely to be more opinionated than the average handbook article. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're definitely pointing out a relevant problem (for instance, I don't think pro-drop was first coined in 1981 by Chomsky). Besides considering sources such as those nicely suggested by Botterweg14, it may be worth reconsidering making such historical statements, i.e. formulating with something else, such as "Chomsky defined the term as XYZ in his 1980 book this way", without claims of coinage or being the first. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with all three comments (by Tropylium, Botterweg14 and Replayful). As Replayful says, we should refrain from making a claim about someone being the first to use a term when there is no independent source for that claim. As Botterweg14 suggests, handbooks and similar kinds of secondary sources are the best sources to support such statements, but I also agree with Tropylium that even primary research articles still can serve as secondary sources for certain statements especially when they summarize earlier research. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thought I would give a heads up about this deletion discussion which might be relevant to members of this project. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thought I would give a heads up about this other deletion discussion which might also be relevant to members of this project. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the Project Latin, there is an effort by me and @Kanjuzi to improve two articles on Latin tenses: namely, Latin tenses (high importance) and Latin tenses (semantics) (low importance). The former is a listing of all verb paradigms and verb periphrasis paradigms and their uses. It focuses on the paradigms whose names include a tense component (present, future, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future perfect) and it list the various uses of the paradigm: for instance, the indicative present paradigm can be used to represent future, present and past events. In contrast, the latter article is a description of how primary tenses (future, present, past) and relative tenses (posteriority, simultaneity, anteriority) are realised by verbs and verb periphrases. However, though very similar, these two articles are scored very differently for importance in the Project Linguistics (high importance vs low importance).

Why is this the case? Are formal descriptions of language more important than functional descriptions? Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Couto Vale: I'm not an active participant here, but since no one else has responded, I might as well do so. I think you're attaching too much importance to the importance classification. The editor who assigned the levels probably didn't think about this nearly as much as you. You can change it if you want, just don't worry about it. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I thought there was a process like that of evaluation. I will change it to the same level of Latin tenses. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For those who aren't aware, there is a bot-maintained list of new, unreviewed linguistics articles at User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Linguistics. It's currently a bit backlogged and help would be appreciated. I semi-regularly patrol it and it's usually quite straightforward, but sometimes there are articles that need a more expert eye than I have.

You need the new page reviewer permission to mark articles in the list as reviewed. If anyone wants to help out but doesn't already have it, you can request it at WP:PERM/NPR – give me a ping if you do so and I'll make it's processed promptly. You will need to have an extended confirmed account and some prior experience in writing new articles, reviewing WP:AFC submissions, and/or participating in deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

For example, I have no idea what to do with Ainu-Minoan languages. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have requested the permission. For what it's worth, the Ainu-Minoan languages article looks like an AfD candidate to me. The article is largely a summary of two papers by independent researchers plus some tangentially related information based on more reliable sources. It does properly signal (though perhaps not clearly enough) that this a fringe theory, but I'm not seeing clear signs of notability. If I was a page reviewer, I might ask the author for their thoughts first since I know from experience that AfD can be frustrating. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have started with PROD. If that fails, I'll proceed with AfD. There should be no place and zero tolerance for the promotion of non-notable fringe hypotheses in Wikipedia. –Austronesier (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As the translator of that article, I have redirected it to Dené–Caucasian languages, as it is an appropriate target and is mentioned in the article itself. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also appear to have overlooked WP:PROFRINGE in the translating of the article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kepler-1229b: No worries. You're doing lots of good work here, so things can happen when we're enthusiastic about building new content. I want to bring the redirect to RfD because it is not an encyclopedic search topic and the target does not (and should not) mention "Ainu-Minoan". Maybe you can consider to put a {{db-g7}}-tag on it to save time and effort? –Austronesier (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'll do that now. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 06:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's done. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 06:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also wanted to mention that many of the articles on this list don't seem to be related to linguistics to me. See, for instance, 2019 Mangalore City Corporation election. It seems to be a more general problem since I noticed something similar on this WikiProject's article alerts. Somewhat puzzling! Botterweg14 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah it's an automated classification, and not a very accurate one. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, I've been trying to improve the Cajun English article, and I'm finding it difficult to modernize the phonology section in particular. I believe a lot of it is due to rapid evolution of Cajun English that I've tried to explain here, and the sources available are mostly outdated and based on very old people, and sometimes they're still wrong. I wanted to see if y'all can help me find some sources, especially about modern forms of rhoticity/non-rhoticity, L/R/W sound changes, and nasalized vowels. 67.254.248.131 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if someone could help clarify and lightly edit the etymology section in Land, especially as it relates to the Proto-Indo-European definition, which I don't have a source for and thus have not included. Thanks, ForksForks (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my view, it is almost never justified for a general encyclopedia article to go back into reconstructed etymologies. The article isn't about the word "land". Remsense ‥ 论 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That has consistently confused me too. I cut the section to what it is now by about half. I will consider a bold removal. ForksForks (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Michael Savage has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gyat#Requested move 12 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, there's an edit request at the bottom of Talk:Vikings that could use a look from folks with some expertise in the (North) Germanic languages. Remsense ‥ 论 02:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Common Era, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been going through articles like Koko (gorilla), Great ape language, Washoe (chimpanzee), etc. and trying to undo what appears to be a lot of writing by people with a pop-science understanding. The article on Kanzi needed very little attention and seems to handle the the fact that it's communication, not language much better. The others were full of huge lists of sentences that the great apes had purportedly said and claims about their linguistic acumen presented uncritically. Considering the general strong consensus that this isn't language, the articles need a cleanup to not just present patent bunk to general readers, especially in light of the disconnect between public perception and scholarly consensus. Any extra eyes on this would be greatly appreciated.

The stance I've been taking here is that while primatologists are experts on ape behaviour, they are not linguists and when the question is "Is this ape using language" the answer needs to come from pertinent experts on that question. Objections to those answers need to be handled with WP:UNDUE in mind, but I'm open to disagreements here.

(I'll ping the Primates wikiproject and invite them here as well) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Overall seems like good work, and the attention was much needed. Although I did rv one line of yours just now -- hopefully the e.s. was sufficient.

If we're disagreeing on what the scope of the controversy is in the literature, then I agree that'll probably be a cross-article discussion to have. But I agreed with the rest of the edits on that page. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The thing is the disagreement in the literature is split neatly along the line of “subject matter expert” vs “someone writing about a concept outside their primary field they were trained it”. That’s pretty WP:REDFLAG. I’m definitely already seeing a mountain of pushback from non-linguists on this, which is why I think it’s important to make these articles less misinforming for a reader.

Someone who learns about Koko randomly on the internet and who comes here for more info should not leave the page with the impression that Koko could use sign language, or that there’s even a particularly nuanced debate around that fact (in my opinion, at least). What was mostly there until a few days ago was basically content taking all of these experiments as successes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My problem with your edits is that these are historic research studies and you've been going through and removing text and citations that aren't focus on the issue that concerns you: whether these apes truly acquired language or not.

You removed the Gardners' response (who were not frauds or crackpots) to the criticisms of their work and cut pieces out of Koko entry that aren't related to your thesis. Koko was a cultural phenomenon who changed the way many people viewed gorillas, seeing them for the first time as gentle creatures with humanlike behaviors (a gorilla with her own pet kitty!). Prior to Koko, the popular understanding of gorillas was more along the lines of King Kong. Yes, you are right that there was no scientific evidence that she should truly speak language and that matter obviously deserves attention. But it's not the only thing she was about. Monkeywire (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually agree I was heavy handed in removing Gardners response, for what it’s worth. As I said on the talk page, I don’t think the response needs a full treatment as it landed with a wet thud, but it should still be there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Non-linguists could be recommended to read Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct", a now-classic popularization which discusses some of the issues involved. I never watched the PBS show about Koko, because I expected the worst from something with a factually-false assertion in its title (comparable to Krakatoa, East of Java when Krakatoa is actually west of Java)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

At least I was able to find a WP:RS/AC passing cite that there’s an overwhelming consensus that language is exclusively human, which should help. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahmad Hasan Dani has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The opinion of someone with a background in linguistics (particularly someone knowledgeable about the history of the English language) would be welcome at Talk:Beef#Etymology. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Is this a good place to ask for help getting IPA pronunciation written down in an article? If so, I've got a request - how to pronounce all of "Nikola Tesla" in English. Cf. Talk:Nikola Tesla#lead sentence style details. TIA! --Joy (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think /ˈnɪkələ ˈtɛslə/ is the most common English pronunciation. Doremo (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Putting that in http://ipa-reader.xyz/ seems to work out.

I browsed YouTube for some confirmation, and after wading through a bunch of LLM bot crap, here's some samples of recordings of native speakers reading the name:

• "Nikola Tesla" at the end of a sentence by Bernard Carlson, an American Tesla biographer that we cite (American, in his 60ies, male)
• "Nikola Tesla" as part of a pointed phrase by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an American science communicator (American, in his 60ies, male)
• "Nikola" as part of a sentence and "Tesla" at the end of an introductory phrase by Brian Bowers, a science historian (British, probably older than previous ones?, male)
• "Nikola Tesla" at the end of a phrase by Rose Edmondson, a science teacher (British, middle-aged?, female)

What do we think, is that the consensus, or should we note some of the variance? --Joy (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Carlson, Bowers, and Edmondson all seem to say /ˈnɪkələ ˈtɛslə/ (or close enough that any small deviation doesn't matter). Edmondson seems to have an intrusive r on the end of Tesla (which should be ignored), and Tyson seems to say /ˈnɪkolə/, which is overpronounced (cf. the usual cupola /ˈkjuːpələ/, gondola /ˈɡɑndələ/). So I recommend /ˈnɪkələ ˈtɛslə/. Doremo (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, good, then let's use that for the given name.

One thing I noticed is that Bowers seemed to change /s/ to /z/ in the surname, too. I noticed a video of someone saying this is also something South Africans do, what with Elon Musk noticably doing that [1]. As the pronunciation of the surname is already documented, and this isn't, I'll leave that for another day. --Joy (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would guess that some dialects make it /ˈnɪkɔlɑ ˈtɛslɑ/; if we write it so, most Anglos will pronounce it with schwas anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that the name of the article is "Yokuts language" (singular), it uses the {{Infobox language}}, and some other articles such as Yok-Utian languages treat this genetic unit as a single language as well, but the article itself indicates that this is really a family consisting of about six distinct languages (and the categories follow this).

From Yawelmani Yokuts, I gather that the language family is also known as "Yokutsan" for clarity, a term I also remember seeing in this well-known map.

(By the way, the tree in the infobox in the Yawelmani Yokuts article is pretty extreme in its detail and depth, which forms an odd contrast with the notion that Yokuts is only a single language. A random reader ignorant on Yokuts who comes across the article and sees the infobox could easily get the impression that Yokutsan is really a massive language family more like Uto-Aztecan or even Austronesian.)

So, shouldn't we rename the article to "Yokuts languages" or even to "Yokutsan languages"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's worse is that this article was already under Yokutsan languages until a few years ago, but then Kwamikagami moved it to Yokuts language, and now it just keeps contradicting itself, as does Wikipedia in general on this matter. Can we get some consistence? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I messed up in following one of the refs, probably Glottolog. Last person I spoke to who actually works on Yokuts said it's a single language per mutual intelligibility. I've reverted my later edits that turned it into a family. — kwami (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

15.ai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ben Nevis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This newly mainspaced relatively extensive article deals significantly with the Tetragrammaton, a term for which there are diverging views regardings its vocalization, which is covered in its own article, and verifiability, dueness, neutrality of content needs to be reviewed by editors with relevant knowledge. The article could have elements of a WP:POVFORK, and might to a degree advocate a minority viewpoint whose well-foundedness in linguistics might be questionable. Please take a look at the content to see if there are any major issues. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing. Thank you—Alalch E. 12:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as we started to talk here, how should we IPA-transcribe the name surname of a person whose e.g. name is Italian and surname is French? Simoncik84 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody please rescue this stub? Bearian (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've never been involved in a wikiproject before but this seems like something that requires extra editors' attention. A self published writer, Olivier Simon aka Mundialecter, has inserted their own theory into this article under a new section "some recent developments" citing their own self-published paper as the source. I think this is inappropriate both for the obvious conflict of interest and the low notability of their theory. I've tried discussing the issue with them but they seem convinced that they're correct and therefore their theory must be mentioned in the article. I understand enough of Jasanoff to believe Simon's reading of him is incorrect, but I don't see the point in getting into a likely fruitless academic argument with the user when the real issue is the conflict of interest and lack of notability. Cyllel (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Opposite (semantics)#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect You lose to the article Godwin's law has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14 § You lose until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is an ongoing merge proposal for Statement (logic) into Proposition that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP seems to be totally lacking any information on the concept of fogemorphemes, which seem to be particular to (or mostly to) Germanic languages.[2]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

See interfix. Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply