Talk:Prague school

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Request:

Would it be possible to include a bit more discussion about the tenets or main ideas of the this school of thought? I am a graduate student in linguistics reading about structural linguistics and came across the "Prague School" in an article. However, rather than explaining what this school is about, this just gives a history...a bit more explanation of what these thinkers believe(d) would be helpful. Thank you. --EJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.180.200 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not seeing any consensus for this to be renamed Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)



Prague Linguistic CirclePrague school — "Prage school" is the most-common form in English, as far as I know. A search of Google books for the two gives approx x5 results for "Prague school" than "Prague Linguistic Circle". Wikipedia naming conventions state that the most-common form should be used. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prague School" is kind of vague, and the title of their official publication was Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is vague. However, isn't it the form under which it is most-commonly known in English? DionysosProteus (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Prague Linguistic Circle is the more specific and informative name, and probably also the more "official" name -- and I really don't look forward to seeing someone like Trubetzkoy, who made genuine scientific contributions, being lumped together with pretentious BS movements which accomplished nothing of real value, such as the Frankfurt School, Second Chicago School, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. From a sensible discussion to idiocy in one fell swoop--impressive. Prague school more significant than Frankfurt? From what planet have you recently arrived? The point at issue, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is not the most correct, official, specific, etc., but rather the most common. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about significance -- just that it involved a whole lot less pretentious yet meaningless gibberish, or plans to make people live and work in soulless glass boxes whether or not they wanted to live and work in soulless glass boxes, etc. ad nauseam. "Prague School" is probably the most common short reference among linguists when writing for other linguists, but it's not necessarily the most useful article title for Wikipedia. It's vague and doesn't give much idea of what the article is about, it doesn't seem to be the official name, and the construction "X School" has somewhat equivocal connotations in some contexts. AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "equivocal connotations" you mean, but the point of the naming conventions is to give the article the most-common form, since this is the one that other articles will link to (without piping) and that browsers will search for. "Prague school" is the term I've encountered, both in writing by linguists and just about everyone else that refers to them. An article title isn't meant to take the form "Wherein is described...", but rather, simply, the name under which the subject of the article is most-commonly known. It would then be usual to follow this, in the first sentence of the article, with an "(also known as...)" or a more-detailed explanation of official, etc. This could take the form: "The Prague Linguistic Circle, most-commonly [referred to / known] as the Prague school, was a..." And as far as pretentious, meaningless gibberish is concerned, I can only say: Awww, did nastly old Adorno make your poor likkle head hurt? :) DionysosProteus (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't spend much time thinking about Adorno in the normal course of events, but the equivocal opinions which many people hold about such entities as the "Frankfurt School", "Second Chicago School", etc. -- or Milton Friedman's Chicago school of economics for that matter -- are a supporting reason why "Prague School" would not necessarily be the best title for this article. The main reason, of course, is that "Prague School" is a kind of academic-linguistics-internal short form, and when deprived of such context and standing alone as an article title it's somewhat vague, and gives no real idea what the article is about. "Prague Linguistic Circle" is also rather short and snappy (not like the title of a 17th-century book with three separate subtitles), and has the advantage of apparently being the official name of the group... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Which "people" would that be then? The point is, that it is usually--most-commonly--used in precisely that "short form" in academic literature. You can't really argue that in this article it is "deprived of context" when the first line of the article gives precisely the context you are talking about. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

do not bother with the russian article translation[edit]

i am not deleting the suggestion to translate from Russian, but it seems unnecessary since it has little further information. The Czech article obviously is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.174.248 (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)