Talk:Neoclassical compound: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:08, 29 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neoclassical compound article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Linguistics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Neoclassical compound appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that classical compounds make up much of the technical and scientific lexicon of Western European languages?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/June.

Wikipedia

Neat

I know many people think that this stuff is pretty neat, but surely it is nought but mindless cut'n'paste Greco-Latin? But words like 'ailurophobia' and 'lachrymose' are worthless.

Merge proposal

The articles Classical compound and Combining form talk about the same subject, and should therefore be merged. --Antonielly (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this suggestion is taken, make sure to include a cross-reference. Combining form appears in editing references, and some may search using that term.138.27.1.18 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the article and redirected combining form here. AIRcorn (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under "See also", there is now a link to the Combining Form article, but it just links back to the Classical Compound page. Someone should remove that link. 147.142.8.48 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Western languages" notion

I think that the repeated use of "Western languages" (A large portion of the technical and scientific lexicon of English and other Western European languages <...>; <...> classical languages whose prestige is or was respected throughout the West European culture <...>) is inaccurate and openly ignores the fact that most Central and Eastern European languages and cultures do not differ at all from the Western European languages and cultures when it comes to the treatment of classical languages. Most scientific and technical vocabulary is built from Latin and Greek roots just as often in Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia etc. as it is done in England, Germany or France.

So it would be best, in my opinion, to replace the weasel phrase "Western (European) languages" by simply "European languages" since most European countries are a part of the same civilization which originated with the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. --RokasT (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Chinese?

Would it be appropriate to include Chinese in the sources of classical compounds?Asoer (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 So it would be best, in my opinion, to replace the weasel phrase "Western (European) languages" by simply "European languages" since most European countries are a part of the same civilization which originated with the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. --[[User:RokasT|RokasT]] ([[User talk:RokasT|talk]]) 15:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
+== How about Chinese? ==
+Would it be appropriate to include Chinese in the sources of classical compounds?[[User:Asoer|Asoer]] ([[User talk:Asoer|talk]]) 00:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)