Talk:Isogloss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge with Isograph article[edit]

hekk yeah do it

why should we do it in fact i belive that if we are to link both pages we need a strong and firm transition from point to point so we do not get our readers confused, also if we were to link them we need to know when to stop comparing the two, so we do not get them confused. that is all i have to say hope u all have a very happy christmas A.A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.183.234 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to merge the two. An isograph is clearly not closely related to the notion of the isogloss, as isograph relates to research in writing systems and typology whereas isogloss relates to dialectology, phonetics and sociolinguistics - all disciplines studying verbal forms. The two terms are not closely connected and merging them would only serve to confuse. Eculeus (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eculeus. One is a function of written language whereas the other is a function of verbal language. From a linguistic standpoint they are vastly different considering elements going into each. Spoken language changes faster and has things like phonological variations which wouldn't be represented in an isograph that would in an isogloss. Merging the two would only confuse people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.192.47 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this has been done nonetheless. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory definitions[edit]

The article intro has two different definitions of the concept: (1) a geographic area, and (2) a linguistic feature. Please remove one of them or explicitly state the relationship between the two definitions. -Pgan002 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage in article still not clear. Intro says geographic boundary, body talks about linguistic features.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mention Centum-Satem isogloss[edit]

Under section "Examples", please mention (and briefly explain) the Centum-Satem isogloss, which is, according to the intro, the most important example. -Pgan002 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient examples are confusing[edit]

In section Examples, there is a notation that may be unfamiliar to readers; for example, what is "/wld/" and what is "w > y"? -Pgan002 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)