Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Welcome to the talk page for WikiProject Linguistics. This is the hub of the Wikipedian linguist community; like the coffee machine in the office, this page is where people get together, share news, and discuss what they are doing. Feel free to ask questions, make suggestions, and keep everyone updated on your progress. New talk goes at the bottom, and remember to sign and date your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks!

Contradiction in Help:IPA/Inuktitut[edit]

Consonants in general[edit]

Hi everybody! I've been interested in phonetics and studying it for a while yet I wish somebody would explain to me or provide me with some information on what principle consonants are added to the Wikipedia and thereby classified. To be more specific I'll show an example: Voiceless alveolar non-sibilant affricate uses the symbols [tɹ̝̊ tθ̠ and tθ͇] but what is it included in the IPA pulmonic consonants chart? IPA does not include it. Isn't it just a realization of /tr/? And if it is and we still include it in the chart why doesn't we include other realization of certain phonemes such as dental voiceless dental alveolar sibilant /s̪/, and many many more? I hope someone will able to explain it to me :) Tashi Talk to me 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing phonemes (abstract language-specific entities) with phones (actual sounds). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
So do you think that the chart should consist of phonemes or phones? If phonemes, there shouldn't be any [tɹ̝̊] sound in it, if phones there why there is no [s̪] (just an example) included? Tashi Talk to me 17:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tashi: Again, phonemes are abstract language-specific entities that aren't even sounds but just containers for them. They have nothing to do with our table of consonants, which is a table of phones. Please read phoneme and allophone.
The dental version of [s] is listed on voiceless alveolar fricative. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Final devoicing: Armenian[edit]

Moved to Talk:Final-obstruent devoicing: Nardog (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on the linguistics sidebar[edit]

Template changes[edit]

Before changes
After changes

Discussion[edit]

I recently made some major changes to {{Linguistics}}, and I want to get wider feedback on the template, content- and style-wise.

At the top I added "Part of a series on" and added links to the overview page, page on the history of linguistics, and the index page. I couldn't decide on a good image like other sidebar boxes, so feel free to suggest on. As for content I removed a number of links, shortening the overal length. I made the sections collapsible allowing readers to open or hide sections as they need. It defaults to fully expanded.

I redid the sections entirely. Firstly, I removed the distinction of theoretical and descriptive linguistics in favor of a simple "subfields" header. The inclusion criteria was already being in the template and being on the list of subfields maintained by the Open Language Archives Community and The Linguist List, so a number of links were removed but none were added. Feel free to suggest ones to add or different criteria to use. I added a section on grammatical theories. The inclusion criteria was being a top level link in the list on Grammar#Theoretical_frameworks. I think a more general list of important theories in linguistics would be more useful to readers, and it would include things like Montague grammar, Source–filter model of speech production, and optimality theory. I think it's better to get a consensus on what things should be on that list, so suggestions are welcome. The Topics section is similar, though it's inclusion criteria was topics I thought were relevant. Suggestions for pages to add or remove there would be particularly welcome so that the list is useful. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit notice for Code-switching[edit]

Code-switching, and I imagine other linguistics articles, is frequently targeted by copy editors who change non-standard usage example to standard language. This often defeats their purpose of illustrating particular linguistic behavior.

Yesterday I tried to request an edit notice for the page, but today I notice that I forgot to add {{edit template-protected}} to actually make the request. D'oh! But on second thought, that turns out to be fortunate.

I hereby invite editors interested in this project to view the request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Code-switching and help improve the proposed template. Alternately, if you disagree that a template is necessary you could let the admins know that. Cnilep (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources regarding gender in English[edit]

Are there any good reliable and definitive sources on how gender is handled in English, and about how English would be classified in terms of gender usage. Sometimes I think discussions run into semantic issues, with some arguing that the presence of gender in pronouns means English should be classified as a language with gender like how Spanish and German are; and others arguing that English lacks the noun classes that make up what we think of grammatical gender and so should be classified separately, and classified with the languages that don't have grammatical gender like Turkish and Korean. I was able to provide the 2008 source from Jenny Audring which was published in morphology, which looked at pronominal gender systems and compared such systems across multiple languages, including English.[1]

Does anyone else have good sources on the subject? Also, how do you think should we present this information on Wikipedia?--Beneficii (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen Gender in English? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
One (gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun) is uncertain. Narky Blert (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories - Grammarians and Linguists[edit]

Struggling to find appropriate categories for Wendy Ayres-Bennett (Professor of French Philology and Linguistics) I'm puzzled why within the tree Category:Linguists by language of study there are "Linguists of ..." many languages but Category:Grammarians of French (to which I've added her) and of most other major European languages and some others. I'm not a linguistics specialist so this distinction between Linguists and Grammarians may be perfectly obvious to some although not to me. But when I look at the dab page at Grammarian, the only senses which apply to contemporary people are Linguist or Philologist. Category:Philologists by subject includes Category:Romance philologists (to which I've added her). Category:Grammarians redirects to Category:Linguists. Does this category tree make sense, to subject experts? Should the "Grammarians of ..." categories be renamed as "Linguists of ..." for contemporary languages?

Ah, after typing the above and looking at the history of Category:Grammarians I have now found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_17#Grammarians_categories where this was discussed nearly three years ago. The close included: "Follow-up speedy nominations would be needed to merge/rename Category:Grammarians by nationality and its subcats to Category:Linguists by nationality and its subcats, and to rename the modern language sub-cats of Category:Linguists by language of study to "linguists". Is it now time to do this? Pinging those active in that discussion: @Fayenatic london, SMcCandlish, Jc37, and Johnpacklambert: If there's a better venue for this discussion, please advise. Thanks. PamD 11:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: you could ask for help at WP:AWB/Tasks to tag all the pages with {{cfr-speedy}}. – Fayenatic London 19:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: I've not got any experience with renaming categories. Do you think these are speediable as Consistency with established category tree names or one of the other C2 criteria? The documentation about speedying Cats seems very firm that one of the C2 criteria must be met. If they're definitely speediable it won't be much work to tag them all as there are only 21, hardly worth using AWB... though I'm out of practice with AWB and it might be a useful exercise. PamD 21:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages[edit]

I have collected several articles with linguistics-related links to DAB pages, which need expert attention. If you can solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{disambiguation needed}} tag, and add {{done}} to the list below.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)