|WikiProject Languages||(Rated Start-class)|
|This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.
Merge with Isograph article
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 18.104.22.168 (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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
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)