Talk:South Picene language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 
WikiProject Italy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome  
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Classification[edit]

Well, I plan to to start on this now, working on it gradually. For the classification, historically of course there has been a lot of difficulty finding a suitable precise classification for these minor Italic languages. You see a lot of theories out there. SIL International, a primarily linguistic organization, which studies language in the field, offers a standard ISO classificatory system. They maintain it. They collect data for the database on which it is based; it is, in other words, a living system kept by active linguists. WP has chosen to use their ISO system in a series of boxes for these languages, which cite the ISO standard. It isn't my personal doing; that is the way it is being done here. So, I'm going to do this the same way. According to it this language is within a new group, Umbrian, along with Sabine and some others. True, it is Sabellic (the former Osco-Umbrian), but use of that term is misleading so I am going to clarify it. The language (today anyway) is not general Sabellic; it is Umbrian (which is of course Sabellic).Dave (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rix and non-Rix[edit]

I've taken this out. For one thing, it is improperly specified. Without the ISBN you would have no idea what book this is. In fact it is Venneman's book. For another thing, it is not referenced in the article. We aren't interested in lists of books that have no relevance to the article. Use it or lose it. For a third thing, as usual, the book is inaccessible without buying it. I don't think the editor ever saw the book. He copied the ref from somewhere and didn;t bother to get it right. Editor, that is a very poor technique, of no use to anyone. We're not interested in name-dropping. We want the information. Thanks.Dave (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The unknown 50[edit]

"About 50 South Picene inscriptions are known; they were mostly found in Picenum and were created between the 6th through 4th centuries BC. Some South Picene texts were found in Campania, Lucania, and Bruttium; also in Cures, the capital city of the Sabini."

This strange paragraph doesn't look anything like what I am seeing in the major works on the topic. 50? If there are 50 I would like to know about it! As it is unreferenced I am replacing it with what I do see. If you come up with the source of the 50, get in touch, hey?Dave (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The categories[edit]

The policy is, not to have redundant categories. So, if there is a chain growing more and more specific: Indo-European, Italic, Osco-Umbrian, South Picene - you would not put South Picene in every one of those categories, only the next up in the chain. So, we only want South Picene to be in Osco-Umbrian. Actually it needs another category, Umbrian, but I'm not doing that right at the moment. One notable exception would be if you wanted to list every specific IE language and not the subcategories. Otherwise you are going to repeat South Picene three additional times. All the end-categories get multiplied as many times as there are superior categories. I think the standard policy is fine there; if there are exceptions, then you make exceptions.Dave (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortson and the toga[edit]

This section was pretty much taken word for word from Fortson's book, shortly to be given as a reference. This kind of thing is in no way helpful. If it is worth putting in there, do it right! If your wording is going to be the same, use a quote. Certainly this section should have had the references. On that inscription, Fortson's translation is not standard. He is offering a translational solution to certain problems. It isn't your solution, editor, it is Fortson's. I hope wou will take this stern lecture to heart; you may save yourself some trouble later in life. Earnestness is the path of Nirvana, etc. It so happens Watkins considered this inscription so I'm bringing him in also.Dave (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)