Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology-deck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technology-deck split and Technology-deck

Unverifiable, perhaps original research. Zero google hits for "technology-deck split". Maybe it can be moved somewhere, if it's real? --Cryptic (talk) 07:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 11:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a place, and I created it back in February 2005 the last time that an article such as this came up in VFD. It's phonemic differentiation. If "tech-deck" is shown to be real, Merge as per the decision of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sirius-serious merger. Uncle G 12:06, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real thing. Many Scots do pronounce the ch in technology and orchid like the ch in loch instead of like the ch in school. Steve Jun 14, 2005 (actually 64.12.116.202 14:55, 2005 Jun 14 according to edit history. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC))
    • Then prove it. Cite your sources. Cite studies of this split by linguists. Look at the list of references that Wikipedia editors have accrued at the bottom of phonemic differentiation. Cite a similar reference for your "real thing". If, however, this is your original study and your original linguistic analysis, then you are in the wrong place. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
      • It's not my original study. The use of /x/ in technical is discussed in the Scottish English talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scottish_English. Steve Jun 14, 2005 (actually 205.188.117.9 18:31, 2005 Jun 14 according to edit history. Uncle G 18:56, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC))
        • It isn't, unless you count two people asking for sources to be cited, the same as here, to little effect to be discussion. "Noah Winner"'s question there remains unanswered. Uncle G 18:56, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • We have required all splits and mergers in phonemic differentiation to be verifiable with cited sources, and they all are, thanks to the good work of several editors. So far, even when pressed, the editors of this article (and indeed of Scottish English) have provided no verifiable sources for it. As it stands, therefore, the implied "otherwise Delete" of my above vote applies. Uncle G 00:06, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Merge with Scottish English. It's already at Scottish English, so delete this nonexistent term for it. I can provide a source for it. Wells (1982:408) writes:

[Scottish English] retains the velar fricative, /x/, as a member; although in English (as opposed to Scots) /x/ is really restricted to proper names... and sometimes to Greek- or Hebrew-derived words spelt with ch (technical /ˈtɛx-/, patriarch /-rx/, epoch, parochial).

I vote merge with Scottish English, not Do not merge with Phonemic differentiation, because it's not really a phonemic split. It's not that the above words developed /x/ from /k/ by sound change; it's a spelling pronunciation formed by analogy with Scots words and names that have ch pronounced /x/. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.