Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pgfeller (talk | contribs)
16 edits
Pgfeller (talk | contribs)
16 edits
Line 138: Line 138:
==Participants==
==Participants==
*[[User:linguistlist|LINGUIST List]]
*[[User:linguistlist|LINGUIST List]]
*{{User: Pgfeller|Pgfeller}}
*[[User:Pgfeller|Pgfeller]]
*[[User:MakemPete|MakemPete]]
*[[User:MakemPete|MakemPete]]
*[[User:Nohat|nohat]]
*[[User:Nohat|nohat]]

Revision as of 04:11, 20 August 2012

WikiProject Linguistics
collaboration on linguistics
in Wikipedia
Main pageDiscussionAssessmentArticle alertsRecognized contentPortal
WikiProject
Linguistics
Task forces
Shortcut

Welcome to WikiProject Linguistics. We are a group of editors collaborating to improve linguistics articles on Wikipedia. We cover a broad range of subjects within the general field of linguistics, including theoretical linguistics, applied linguistics, etymology, and phonetics. You will find a number of resources on this page to help you with improving Wikipedia's coverage of linguistics; take your time and have a look around. If you have any questions, please ask them on the discussion page, and we will be happy to help you.


Linguistics articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 6 8 16
FL 1 4 5
GA 3 6 20 37 4 70
B 4 47 96 232 165 544
C 37 111 258 935 1 892 2,234
Start 7 90 344 2,084 1 2,198 4,724
Stub 6 60 1,168 1,382 2,616
List 13 12 31 172 76 304
Category 2,417 2,417
Disambig 1 42 43
File 15 15
Portal 1 1
Project 18 18
Redirect 1 3 22 95 447 568
Template 135 135
NA 2 9 136 147
Other 39 39
Assessed 66 276 840 4,745 3,252 4,717 13,896
Total 66 276 840 4,745 3,252 4,717 13,896
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 50,024 Ω = 4.90


Getting started

There are a number of things you can do right now to help:

Open tasks

Articles to be created

  • Expressive power of natural languages to deal with expressive power as differences are found among the natural languages. Issues to deal with include differences in vocabularies, the phenomenon of cultural, implied, or idiomatic meaning in expressions, logical structures and inflections. In the concept of directly comparing a statement in one language with one in another, it would appear to be necessary to illustrate the point through examples in different formats, including meaningful translation, direct transliteration, and parenthetical tags indicating hidden grammatical and semantic units. The purpose if this article would be to show how different languages form expressions and how certain types of expressions are more... expressive in certain languages. In particular I'm thinking about languages with smaller vocabularies, distinct, particular, or unregulated schemes for word assimilation, etc, and how they contrast with languages with larger vocabularies, systematic word foundations (Greek, Latin, etc) and so forth. What statements can be formulated in certain languages that can't be formulated in others, either because they lack the concept, or because the term has properties which don't translate well (meta-conceptual terms, etc)?-Stevertigo 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-formedness – this currently redirects to Gradient well-formedness, but the more general topic should have its own article. MuffledThud (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for expansion

Requests for attention

  • Linguistic modality: There is a request for attention by an expert on the page itself. I am currently teaching a graduate course on the subject and feel quite comfortable with it, so I am planning to transform it during the next few weeks. I'd welcome comments and discussions, in particular on the issue of mergin "Grammatical mood" with the page. For now, I think it would be a good idea, but I'm open for diverging views. Watasenia (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone spare a bit of time to help improving this article?

This article is heavily tagged in need of attention since March 2008 and from a quick read certainly needs it, I'm not expert on the subject but I think it's fairly wrong.86.9.126.174 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a confusing mess, specifically its very difficult to see how the topic is different from the subject of a sentence. Clearer examples, rules, etc as well as a short bit on the separation between topic and subject would be helpful.--Crossmr (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a hand in getting this article more complete, it didn't even discuss conversational styles before. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this article and improve where necessary. --Zaheen (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Athenean has alredy blanked three times (see [1], [2] and [3] 72 valid references of scholars from Gottfried Leibnitz to Shaban Demiraj to minimize the origin of the Albanian Language from Illyrian. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, Sulmues wants this incredible number of sources to highlight the (disputed) Illyrian-Albanian connection as much as possible, while conveniently ignoring any alternate theories (Thracian, Dacian). Athenean (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the speculative origins of Albanian, but 72 references does seem like too many. Sulmues, could you pare it down to maybe 5 essential, authoritative sources? Perhaps someone has already written a survey of this literature that you could simply cite? Indeterminate (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we merge these? Either at SC plus a single grammar article, or if that is too contentious, all together as an "X grammar" article? I dread the edit wars it would spark if I tried this on my own. Of course, coming up with that "X" without mortally offending s.o. may be a problem. kwami (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got it exactly right: in terms of grammar, there is no real reason to treat these separately, but in terms of politics it will be incredibly controversial to decide what to call that grammar. Omniglot uses "Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian"; both R. Katičić (1997) and R. Alexander (2006) use "Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian". Katičić, by the way, seems to suggest that this is not a proper solution (the title was chosen by his editor), as the distinctive dialects don't necessarily correspond to the national boundaries. Maybe we could undertake a broader scan of the literature – say, a survey of grammars published since 1992 – and try to determine if there is any consensus among linguists on what to call this/these language(s). Cnilep (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out we have a nicely developed Serbo-Croatian grammar that was an orphan, so it will be easier than I thought. Naming is a separate issue; we can debate on what to call it, and change our minds, independently of the merge.
As for the dialects, all four official standards are based on East Hercegovinian. The current SC grammar article restricts itself to that. We have several separate dialects articles already, and IMO they're probably good as they are.
Montenegrin will be a bit tricky, as currently we have almost nothing. It has a couple extra letters which AFAIK are not phonemic and not widely used, though there are editors who insist they're both.
From comments on the talk pages, looks like there are half a dozen editors who are supportive. No-one opposed as of yet, though I suppose that's only a matter of time. kwami (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Croatian and Serbian are two different languages http://www.danshort.com/ie/iesatem.htm, http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=3D2-16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.122.197 (talk) 1 March 2011 21:42. Refactored by Cnilep (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Orthography has a "Typology of spelling systems" that lists phonemic, morpho-phonemic, and defective as the three types. There is mention of alphabet, abjad, and syllabary only in passing and no mention of logographs. The section cites no sources and doesn't appear to reflect linguistic or related scholarship. Cnilep (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lexical gap: The article defines a lexical gap as an untranslatable word, which is says were commonly found in "contact of primitive cultures with more advanced civilizations". It cites one source in Russian and the examples are mostly from Russian.　I have only heard the term "lexical gap" as a synonym for accidental gap (e.g. Lyons 1977). I suspect this could be a Russian to English translation issue. Cnilep (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC) – Request for linguist expert with focus on humour:
East Germany jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requests for review

  • I created an article for the Van Dale dictionary, which is the leading dictionary of the Dutch language (similar as the Oxford English Dictionary is for the English language). Request inclusion. SpeakFree (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically generated listings

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

(4 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

  • 11 Sep 2024 – Gyat (talk · edit · hist) RfC by DrewieStewie (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Unreferenced BLPs

There are no unreferenced BLPs in Category:WikiProject Linguistics articles.

New articles

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Linguistics

Templates

Message for talkpages

{{WikiProject Linguistics}}

Userbox

After you sign up, you can add the project userbox to your user page by adding the following: {{User WikiProject Linguistics}}. The template pictured below will appear:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Linguistics.

Your username will then automatically be added to the Category:WikiProject Linguistics members.

Barnstar

{{subst:The Linguistic Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

The template pictured below will appear:

The Linguistic Barnstar
message with signature

Participants

Recognized content

WikiProject Linguistics
collaboration on linguistics
in Wikipedia
Main pageDiscussionAssessmentArticle alertsRecognized contentPortal

Good articles

Former good articles

Did you know? articles

  • Ambigram of the word ambigram - rotation animation
    Ambigram of the word ambigram - rotation animation
  • IPA-euler-manners-features
    IPA-euler-manners-features
  • Italiaanse schrijver Umberto Eco, portret
    Italiaanse schrijver Umberto Eco, portret

Featured article candidates

In the News articles

Main page featured articles

Main page featured lists

Picture of the day pictures

  • Ambigram of the word ambigram - rotation animation
    Ambigram of the word ambigram - rotation animation
  • IPA-euler-manners-features
    IPA-euler-manners-features
  • Italiaanse schrijver Umberto Eco, portret
    Italiaanse schrijver Umberto Eco, portret


Descendant Wikiprojects

Tools

Main tool page: toolserver.org
  • Reflinks – Edits bare references – adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks – Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver – Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer – Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.

External watchlist

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics&oldid=508233615"