Jump to content

Talk:Mixed language: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Maltese: start RFC
Line 18: Line 18:
:As mentioned in my edit summary, [[WP:OWN|you are not in a position]] to decide which reliable sources are more credible than others. All the sources listed claim Maltese is a mixed language.
:As mentioned in my edit summary, [[WP:OWN|you are not in a position]] to decide which reliable sources are more credible than others. All the sources listed claim Maltese is a mixed language.
:And the reason Maltese is considered a mixed language is because it has both Semitic and Romance syntax patterns used coincidingly. You would be correct in saying that Maltese is ''classifiable'' as a Semitic language - because some do consider it so, but since wikipedia represents a [[WP:NPOV|neutral viewpoint]], the fact that many linguists consider it a mixed language must also be represented too. This is your last time, before you break a [[WP:3RR|3-revert rule]]. You are evidently wrong, so I hope for your own reputation and credibility, you walk away with at least some of your pride intact - but the way you are going, you are simply stumbling over yourself splurting out complete rubbish in an attempt to remove all the sources. [[Special:Contributions/89.242.104.114|89.242.104.114]] ([[User talk:89.242.104.114|talk]]) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:And the reason Maltese is considered a mixed language is because it has both Semitic and Romance syntax patterns used coincidingly. You would be correct in saying that Maltese is ''classifiable'' as a Semitic language - because some do consider it so, but since wikipedia represents a [[WP:NPOV|neutral viewpoint]], the fact that many linguists consider it a mixed language must also be represented too. This is your last time, before you break a [[WP:3RR|3-revert rule]]. You are evidently wrong, so I hope for your own reputation and credibility, you walk away with at least some of your pride intact - but the way you are going, you are simply stumbling over yourself splurting out complete rubbish in an attempt to remove all the sources. [[Special:Contributions/89.242.104.114|89.242.104.114]] ([[User talk:89.242.104.114|talk]]) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry, you're just wrong. As a linguist, I am certainly in a position to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources, and I am ''definitely'' in a position to see what sources do not say what you claim they do. At [http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/maltese/abstracts.aspx this source] you added, the term "mixed language" appears only in a section ''specifically'' denying that Maltese is one. [http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-ROMANCELANGUAGES.html This source] ''never'' calls Maltese a mixed language. [http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:MIXJ1GzNBUwJ:nlp.shef.ac.uk/talks/Rosner_20080122.ppt This source] uses the term "mixed language" but defines it as a language in which morphology and syntax are mixed--that is ''not'' the conventional definition of mixed language, nor the one used on this page. [http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/10/UrduFrance.pdf This source] freely admits it's making up its own definition of "mixed language" since they want to be able to call Urdu one. None of the online source mentions Sicanian, Sicilian Arabic, or French; maybe the offline ones do. Of the remaining online sources, none are written by linguists: three are written by computer scientists, and one is a popular encyclopedia. Of course I don't [[WP:OWN|OWN]] this article, but as a Wikipedia editor it is my responsibility to keep ignorant misinformation out of it. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, you're just wrong. As a linguist, I am certainly in a position to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources, and I am ''definitely'' in a position to see what sources do not say what you claim they do. At [http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/maltese/abstracts.aspx this source] you added, the term "mixed language" appears only in a section ''specifically'' denying that Maltese is one. [http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-ROMANCELANGUAGES.html This source] ''never'' calls Maltese a mixed language. [http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:MIXJ1GzNBUwJ:nlp.shef.ac.uk/talks/Rosner_20080122.ppt This source] uses the term "mixed language" but defines it as a language in which morphology and syntax are mixed--that is ''not'' the conventional definition of mixed language, nor the one used on this page. [http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/10/UrduFrance.pdf This source] freely admits it's making up its own definition of "mixed language" since they want to be able to call Urdu one. None of the online source mentions Sicanian, Sicilian Arabic, or French; maybe the offline ones do. Of the remaining online sources, none are written by linguists: three are written by computer scientists, and one is a popular encyclopedia. Of course I don't [[WP:OWN|OWN]] this article, but as a Wikipedia editor it is my responsibility to keep ignorant misinformation out of it. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Er, quite simply, no, I'm not "just wrong" thank you very much. [http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-ROMANCELANGUAGES.html This source], if you cared to read it, describes Maltese as "Semi-Romance", which I am sure that using a few braincells, you might be able to figure out how this should be interpreted. As an undoubtedly higher qualified linguist than yourself, and having stuided the language in depth for several '''years''' myself, I do not respect being spoken to in such an impertinent manner. There are a whole multitude of sources there, and if you are honestly suggesting that they are all invalid, I feel I have no other option than to request Mediation. [[Special:Contributions/89.242.104.114|89.242.104.114]] ([[User talk:89.242.104.114|talk]]) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:56, 21 July 2008

WikiProject iconLanguages Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please provide a published source backing up the claim that Galatian is a mixed language. --Angr/tɔk mi 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article, which is supposed to be about mixed languages, mostly not about mixed languages? I think the irrelevant stuff should be removed. Dougg 08:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because there's so little research done on genuine mixed languages (which are extremely rare) and so much misuse of the term "mixed language" to mean "any form of a language that has been influenced in any way by another language". If you want to improve the article, however, feel free! --Angr/tɔk mi 04:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian/Russian - mixed-language or code-switching?

So, what about the western Ukraine where people are fluent in both Ukrainain and Russian and most speak a mixture of both languages - even in the same sentence? Often people will use the pronouns and pronounciation of one language while heavily borrowing words from the other language. While the grammar is very similar, I've heard that only about 30% of the vocabulary is shared. So, is this area using code-switching or is Ukrussian a mixed-language?

Maltese

Template:RFClang Calling Maltese a mixed language shows a profound misunderstanding of both Maltese and the concept of "mixed language". Maltese is a Semitic language, specifically it's a variety of Arabic. It has a lot of loanwords from Italian and English, but its core vocabulary and all of its grammar is Arabic. It's no more a mixed language than English is (and no, English isn't one either). —Angr 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the sources given. The two offline sources (which I don't have access to) are 50 years old and so hardly reflect up-to-date research. Many of the online sources don't actually claim that Maltese is a mixed language, so I removed them. One freely admits to inventing a new definition of "mixed language", which includes Urdu, Ottomon Turkish, and Yiddish, none of which are considered mixed languages by the conventional definition; I removed that too since this article follows the conventional definition. The remaining online sources that do make the claim are not written by linguists. So maybe 50 years ago some linguists considered Maltese a mixed language, but it seems that today, only non-linguists do. —Angr 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my edit summary, you are not in a position to decide which reliable sources are more credible than others. All the sources listed claim Maltese is a mixed language.
And the reason Maltese is considered a mixed language is because it has both Semitic and Romance syntax patterns used coincidingly. You would be correct in saying that Maltese is classifiable as a Semitic language - because some do consider it so, but since wikipedia represents a neutral viewpoint, the fact that many linguists consider it a mixed language must also be represented too. This is your last time, before you break a 3-revert rule. You are evidently wrong, so I hope for your own reputation and credibility, you walk away with at least some of your pride intact - but the way you are going, you are simply stumbling over yourself splurting out complete rubbish in an attempt to remove all the sources. 89.242.104.114 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're just wrong. As a linguist, I am certainly in a position to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources, and I am definitely in a position to see what sources do not say what you claim they do. At this source you added, the term "mixed language" appears only in a section specifically denying that Maltese is one. This source never calls Maltese a mixed language. This source uses the term "mixed language" but defines it as a language in which morphology and syntax are mixed--that is not the conventional definition of mixed language, nor the one used on this page. This source freely admits it's making up its own definition of "mixed language" since they want to be able to call Urdu one. None of the online source mentions Sicanian, Sicilian Arabic, or French; maybe the offline ones do. Of the remaining online sources, none are written by linguists: three are written by computer scientists, and one is a popular encyclopedia. Of course I don't OWN this article, but as a Wikipedia editor it is my responsibility to keep ignorant misinformation out of it. —Angr 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, quite simply, no, I'm not "just wrong" thank you very much. This source, if you cared to read it, describes Maltese as "Semi-Romance", which I am sure that using a few braincells, you might be able to figure out how this should be interpreted. As an undoubtedly higher qualified linguist than yourself, and having stuided the language in depth for several years myself, I do not respect being spoken to in such an impertinent manner. There are a whole multitude of sources there, and if you are honestly suggesting that they are all invalid, I feel I have no other option than to request Mediation. 89.242.104.114 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]