Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Linguistics

  • To be manually checked, deleted or moved to article's talk page:
  • Euphemism - a long page that's in a mess: clash of literary styles, duplication, etc.
  • Haimirich - This page seems inaccurate, because I believe that two different names are mixed here. Emeric and equivalents could be from the Germanic firstname Amalric and Henry and equivalents could be from Heimirich. The problem is that many sites on the internet give us different, if not opposing information about these names. Amalric and Haimirich are both two basic roots of which many names derived, but it seems all very doubtful from which of the two some of the names, like for example Amerigo, came.
  • List of grammatical cases - this chart needs better examples and more informative descriptions of each case, preferably in complete sentences. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 19:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Synthetic language - The explanation is not correct. The author(s) of this page need to consult a good linguistic source. Synthetic does not refer to only inflection. Synthesis refers to morpheme-to-word ratio. The morphemes do not have to be inflectional--they can be derivational. Inflection refers to root/stem modification (usually affixation) that indicates grammatical information (i.e. relational info). All inflectional languages will be synthetic (to varying degrees), but not vice versa. Ish ishwar 08:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have corrected the definition previously given, but in my opinion, the definition I have given is somewhat rough and ready - it requires someone more well-versed in linguistics to complete the transformation into a proper encyclopedia entry. --firstfox 12:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Synthetic_language"
  • Philadelphia accent This article is woefully inexpert. An article on such a technical subject needs expert authorship not casual observation. Furthermore it contradicts the American English page. Just not up to WikiStandards at all.
  • Greek lexicon - written in first person, article includes comments, table needs alphabetization, additional data needs integration into table with greek translation, etc., etc...
fixed up the number section to be more accessible [Lareti]
  • Orange (word) - etymology is still not 100% due to annoying gaps in my layish knowledge. Needs some expert reviewing. See the talk page for a productive discussion I had and am having with Eequor, but I'd really like more people and more sources to sort this out once and for all. JRM 16:21, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Languages

  • Armenian language - The description of the phonology and grammar sound vague and unprofessional and they lapse into praise of the language. Also, the organization needs improvement--phonological descriptions are spilling into the other sections. People with precise knowledge of the phonology and grammar (and of IPA) should look this over. algormortis 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Azerbaijani alphabet - needs synch up with the main Azerbaijani language article - particularly the alphabets sub-section. Is a separate article for the alphabet required? If it is, then terminology should be synched up. Its not clear to me how the 2 alphabets in the alphabet article map to the various alphabets discussed in the language article. Or should I just drink my morning coffee before logging on? --Cje 09:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • English reform - this seems to be one person's point of view, an attempt to single-handedly reform English spelling and maybe grammar: it is in non-encyclopaedia style, could partly be merged with spelling reform or renamed English language reform and face-lifted, but I don't know how much is worth keeping, especially towards the end Saintswithin 19:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've started changing this but I think it's just nonsense and would prefer a less biased person to take a look! Saintswithin 10:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Swedish language#Examples someone who feels to know the area well ought to look over the examples and, maybe particularly, the pronounciation guides. --212.181.86.76 07:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yaqui language is merely an old list of family relationship names. It should be moved, rewritten, or both. Aaronbrick 23:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Nuer language - I keep meaning to fix this article, originally put together by the well-meaning adoptive sibling of a Nuer child, but I never seem to get around to it, so if anyone else wants to, there's an extremely informative link at the bottom... - Mustafaa 19:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • North Germanic languages - for a lay-person it seems as depreciated theories have a tendency to return to the page. Expert overview is needed.212.181.86.76 09:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Singlish - suggest split to Phonetics and Vocab sections (too long!)

The problems are very similar with the two pages:

    • They contain word tables, where the English word's meaning is completely different than that of the Hungarian word, and they do not explain, what they are doing. This is confusing for the reader. There is also absolutely no explanation, why they contain unsimilar words with complete different meaning, and why they state, these are cognates, without the slightest proof.
    • They state, there are 200 cognates, but the list of about one dozen words indicates, that even the listed ones are not too similar, and/or have completely different meaning. The 200 seems therefore to be a strong exaggregation, as also the Swadesh list indicates this.
    • In the typology part they state, Hungarian has 24 cases, in reality the Hungarian grammar does not use this term, and the pages fail to mention this essential fact.
    • They also contain in the typology important features, that are clearly features of other languages, like Turkish, Persian, Armenian, Basque, Sumerian and others without mentioning that fact.
    • The typology contains features, like palatalization, that are also present in English or Slavic languages, without mentioning that fact.
    • The typology uses features, that are not common in the group, without clearly grouping common and not common features. It also uses expressions, like "modern" or "innovative" for characterization of languages, which are completely unappropriate in the context.
    • The references on the Finno-Ugric page miss important linguistic works, like the study of Dr. Marácz's study about this group.
    • It is also questionable, if the Wikipedia needs both pages, since the term Finno-Ugric has been replaced 1964 by the term Uralic, and the difference between the two groups is marginal.

Antifinnugor 09:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

      • Finno-Ugric vs. Uralic: it is clearly stated here and pretty much everywhere, taught by schoolbooks et cetera that Finno-Ugric is a subset of Uralic where (Finno-Ugric∪Samoyedic)=Uralic.
      • Palatalisation: the way Hungarian palatalised consonants work is very different from how it does in Slavic languages. In fact it’s the first sign of someone being Hungarian if you’re listening to someone speaking Russian or Polish. Furthermore, Slavic languages palatalise consonants as they meet “iotised” vowels (or modern successors of what have been called that in Old Slavic), whereas in Hungarian it happens only on an explicite j (and again, the resulting sound it miles apart). What do you mean by English having a similar feature? Oh, and our palatalised consonants exist on their own, unlike Slavic ть and нь
        • Still palatalization is no feature, that characterizes uralic groups. If yes, the article should write about the reasons in detail.
          • Replied to in my talk page. Those interested could go there and take a look. -- Ralesk 22:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Cases, you should read the article on what’s a case. It’s one thing we don’t call it that because cases are so “Germanic” (POV comment now: might be the reason why Székely still use passive voice through the causative suffix, while “mainland” Hungarians don’t).
        • Hungarian uses no cases.
          • A rose is a rose, no matter what you call it. In your terminology, neither does Finnish or Estonian — so this is a really moot point -- R.
      • That other languages are as well agglutinative, does not mean instant membership to them (comment: it is rumoured that Uralic and Altaic languages might form an even more ancient huge family), and does not mean that we can’t be finno-ugric… that point is really weak.
      • Even in the Uralic categorisation scheme, we are placed lightyears away from the Finno-Sami group. If one considers the history of groups like Hungarians, Chanti/Manysi; Finnish, Estonian; Sami — and you consider that we have been exposed to Turkish and German and western Slavic folks, Ch/M have been to Russians; Finnish to Scandinavians, Estonians to Germans and Russians; Sami to Scandinavians again, there’s a huge reason for the vocabulary differences. Yet still, taking the oldest/simplest words and suffixes, Ch/M and Hungarian seem heavily related, although indeed rather far from F and E, which are close to each other and so-so close to the Sami group. We do share more current vocabulary with Germans and the Slavic who surround us and the Turkish who were here for 150 years, but the timeline is something I don’t think one should forget.
        • Ch/M are very far related to Hungarian. Also Finnish and Estonian. The article fails to mention the other Sumerian agglutinating languages.
          • Not according to the Uralic categorisation scheme. Finn-Permic are farther. Also, if the only thing we have common with Sumerians is the agglutination, then that’s not a very strong point… -- R.
      • I don’t have comments on the word tables. I have personally found the Hungarian phonology page more helpful than the similar parts of the Hungarian language page.
        • The tables are wrong.
          • Some that you give are pretty wrong, yes. What you call “basic words” are often nowhere basic in linguistical and linguo-historical means. -- R.
      • By the way, Hungarian language has a PNA tag on it, yet it did not have its section here on the PNA page, what’s this about? -- Ralesk 08:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I fixed that.
        • Except of the last point still all problems are unsolved. The pages deliver incorrect informations with important facts missing to the Wikipedia user. Antifinnugor 19:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Chinese verbs, linked from Chinese language. It looks like the editor had something planned along the lines of Chinese pronouns, etc, but forgot he had started the article. As it is now, I think it could describe pretty much any language in the world. Does anyone know Chinese? Kyle543 09:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a bit, but it still needs major work. --Danaman5 19:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Elu is a variety of (literary) Sinhala which is inaccurately defined; the author (who also started the article) is not an expert, draws on partially outdated works, refuses to accept criticism and has tried to remove the disputed-tag. Krankman 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Krankman is running around trying to sully my name and demonize me. This person provides his opinion and passes it off as fact, and refuses to listen to anyone other than his own voice. He belives himself to be an "expert" when he is clearly not and has made patently false claims about the Sinhala language (Refer to discussion). He refuses to accept criticism and admit that he was wrong, even when it is clearly the case (Refer to "list of" articles). He adds the disputed tag to whatever article that he does not find "fitting." Clozapine 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Terminology

  • Incorporation (linguistics) - Just corrected it (incorporation does not equal polysynthesis) and got some stolen examples, but in-depth discussion would be welcome, as well as a distinction between incorporation and plain compounding. -- Pablo D. Flores 13:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Stem (linguistics) - I made a start with the definition and English examples (could add Spanish, some Japanese, but it's rather clear as it is). Someone with a clue should write about IE verb stems, which look like a completely different thing to me (agglutinative inflection rather than derivation). -- Pablo D. Flores 12:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Translation - inadequate discussion of "untranslatable" words; disingenuously attempts to erase the differences between translation, semantics, and idiom. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 00:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Tri- Can anyone focus on the question at Talk:Tri-?? 66.245.115.43 21:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That has been done already. However, here is a new problem. Twice in its history, octagon has been added to the octo- article when it properly belongs on the octa- article. Any comments on this?? 66.245.110.11 18:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Information literacy -- Needs to be more like an article and less like an essay, and desperately needs to be wikified. Radagast 01:28, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Simplified some of the text, changed some of the headings, and fixed some of the format issues but there is a lot left before it will sound like an article instead of an essay. It really needs a new structure... jaredwf 12:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Prefix links to both of these. Now, something we should work on is thinking of a Wikipedia category for these as well as any already-existing categories it can be a sub-category of. 66.245.10.239 15:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
At this moment, one of these prefixes, di-, has a Wiktionary message, and so we definitely need to focus more on that particular article. 66.245.100.146 01:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Writing systems


— Do not add text below this point —