Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics

WikiProject Linguistics collaboration on linguistics in Wikipedia	Applied Linguistics Etymology Philosophy of language	Phonetics SFL Theoretical Linguistics
Main pageDiscussionAssessmentArticle alertsRecognized contentPortal

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!

Attestation of chickenhawk

Hello, the article on the lexeme chickenhawk concluded with a well-sourced sentence (The Atlantic, Newsweek, etc.) on its contemporary attestation/usage in English. However, a single-purpose account has repeatedly removed the information as an "irrelevant personal opinion." Looking for commentary and/or involvement regarding the linguistic neutrality of presenting the attestation ("has been used as") and the reliability of the sources. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Irrespective of the merits of the edits themselves, your accusations of bad faith editing on the part of the editor in question are in extremely poor form. You're engaging in an edit war and haven't even bothered to initiate a discussion, even though the user has shown a willingness to do so by creating an account. You know better than this.

I'm surprised I have to tell this to someone who's been at the project for ten-plus years, but before you task the community with doing a bunch of work for you, you should engage in WP:BRD and start a discussion in the article talk page. Rather than biting a newcomer who may not be familiar with our policies and community standards, welcome them their talk page and invite them to participate in the discussion you've started. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 07:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I was seeking broader input on the relevance of contemporary attestation (it's OK if you're not interested in that aspect). Thank you for the suggestion to move the discussion from the edit summaries to the talk page, which I've now added. Doremo (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Terminology science

In plaint English, this article is in such a poor state that it needs to be fixed or it risks deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Fringe Etymologies

Hi everyone,

I've discovered a number of Fringe etymologies at the page Slavicism (see [1], [2], and this talk page thread and I was hoping anyone who knows more about Slavic etymologies could help pick out some more (I'm limited to my knowledge of Germanic). Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that you've removed the crazy stuff, what's left in the article is a few paragraphs of text copied verbatim from Slavic languages#Influence on neighboring languages. – Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Language Instinct

Additional input by editors more familiar with the topic is requested here: Talk:The Language Instinct#Reception, rejection. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Resources

What would you suggest be the best reliable resources to take into consideration when editing articles? Besides mainstream websites such as google. Reinhearted (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reinhearted: The page Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives general information about the criteria for what constitutes a reliable source in which context. Check also the very helpful links in the "See also" section. If there is a specific source which are not sure about whether it is reliable or not, you may raise the issue in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And ideally, you should then provide more context about your inquiry, especially if you are in a content dispute (as I can gather from your talk page). As for Google, remember that it is just a search engine, that will lead you to all types sources, including reliable and non-reliable ones. –Austronesier (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reinhearted: I hosted an edit-a-thon where the university library compiled some books for us to use. They're listed at User:Wugapodes/IYIL sources and may be a good place to start. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

LSA edit-a-thon on Monday

Hi all, the Linguistic Society of America's annual meeting is coming up and---as is becoming the norm---there will be a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in conjunction. This year, it looks to be 11 January 2021, from 20:00 UTC to 23:00 UTC (noon to 3 pacific). I wanted to make you all aware for a few reasons, a big one being that we'd like you to join us in building the encyclopedia. If you can't commit the whole time, there are lots of ways you can still be involved and helpful. After edit-a-thons, many people never come back especially since most ling articles are lonely places. If you see new faces on your watchlist, meatball:WelcomeNewcomers by leaving a message on their user talk or thanking them with the thanks button. If you can, lead by example and try to fix the newbie errors instead of reverting. If you need to revert, try to leave them a message or ping them to the article talk page. I'll be on the zoom call to wrangle them, so if you're really having problems during the event get in touch. Suggestions on what articles could use expert attention or that you've been wanting a collaborator on are also incredibly appreciated and you can feel free to let me know and I'll compile them as a handout for participants. Thanks everyone and hopefully we get some new editors and new content! WugapodesOutreach (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing this! I'd suggest modality (natural language), donkey sentence, cataphora, discourse relation, and Discourse representation theory as articles in need of attention. The articles scope (formal semantics) could use another pair of eyes, and also counterfactual conditional, especially the grammar subsection. Botterweg14 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Color-coding in phonology tables

We have a long-running minority practice of color-coding phonology tables to indicate things like dialectal variation (e.g. Hmong language#Phonology) or phonotactic limitations (e.g. Selkup language#Phonology). This in principle risks problems in accessibility or printability, though; see MOS:COLORCODING. Should we consider having particular recommendations on how to use contrast in tables, for starters e.g. table cell color vs. text color (and perhaps specific color guidelines)? I know I've also seen bolding-for-emphasis and italics-for-emphasis which could be debatable as well.

This comment inspired by running into Dargwa language#Phonology whose hot pink and gold text on normal light gray seems pretty straining to read even as a person with unimpaired color vision (formerly also more copiously in running text which I've fixed already); I also recall Abkhaz language#Phonology having darkish blue and darkish green which are not the easiest to tell apart immediately. (Abkhaz phonology remedies this by adding asterisks / daggers, though.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Could we maybe modify class Wikitable_IPA for other kinds of emphasis than just bold heading cells and light content cells? Then they could be changed at the template level if we run into complications from whatever conventions we decide on. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue is not limited to phonology tables. On one occasion I have applied a color-based description of dialectal variation also to a pronoun table (→Nias language#Grammar). –Austronesier (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We could still use the same table format. Diactical variation is often given in IPA, and even if it isn't, it doesn't hurt anything to have it presented in a font that supports the IPA. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This also does not seem like something that would be limited to linguistics topics. I'm not familiar enough with best practices regarding accessibility or printability parameters, but WP:COLOR says we should make sure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation changes

An IP editor has recently made dozens of credible but unsourced non-English IPA changes. Please could an expert check them? If you have the CIDR gadget enabled then the edits can be seen here, otherwise there is a Latin sample here. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Credible or not, the Latin transcriptions go against what's laid out at Help:IPA/Latin. I recommend immediate reverts of such edits and, if we believe the anonymous editor in question to be interested in discussion, starting a thread at Help talk:IPA/Latin. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other opinions? (preferably from a rollbacker who can save me the tedium of manually undoing them all!) Certes (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Done reverting. I saw recently that some people believe Classical Latin contrasted vowels only quantitatively and not qualitatively so the IP may have been pushing that POV. But as Aeusoes1 said if they believed the key and transcriptions should be changed they should bring it up at the key's talk. If they resume the disruptive editing point to this discussion (since the last IPv6 is likely stale now). (You don't need the gadget to view the range contributions now, btw.) Nardog (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nardog. Should the older non-Latin edits such as this and these be reverted too? The same editor has also made several non-IPA contributions on topics such as Portuguese verb conjugation and Colloquial Finnish which I'm not competent to assess. Certes (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Me neither. FWIW Portuguese phonology seems to be a topic that attracts a lot of OR and unsourced edits. Nardog (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rolled back the Portuguese; this is about conjugation of the pretérito mais-que-perfeito of the subjunctive; in any case, they included no references, and that's reason enough to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I meant to introduce myself?

"If you wish to participate in WikiProject Etymology, please add your name to the list below and introduce yourself on the project talk page". So hi? I'm LocalPunk :) happy to be here, I have a special interest in etymology LocalPunk (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Auditory phonetics

I'd like to suggest that the article on Auditory phonetics be removed from the list of topics needing attention, as it has been considerably expanded from the single sentence mentioned. RoachPeter (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for expansion: Phonetics

Surely the criticism of the Phonetics article is no longer valid? RoachPeter (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Which criticism, where, from whom?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics#Requests for expansion. @RoachPeter: Nobody takes care of these lists anyway, so WP:be bold. Nardog (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Contemplate mood (or aspect?)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Irrealis mood#Contemplative is missing?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

XKCD and the Tower of Babel

Members of this WikiProject may want to visit the page at https://xkcd.com/2421/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Eskimo-Aleut language

Any knowledgeable folks here? I've found this paper, which calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence, as many alleged cognates between Eskimo and Aleut are highly dubious and likely the result of relatively recent language contact and borrowing. My understanding as an outsider is that while Proto-Eskimo is relatively well understood and there are decent reconstructions, Proto-Aleut is much less so, and while their relationship is not in doubt, it is distant and a good reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut is still sorely lacking. Weeding out borrowings and other false cognates between the two primary branches is vital for the progress of the reconstruction, but it also thins out the evidence, which doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly plentiful anyway, so the paper brings bad news in this sense. I wonder what the effect on PEA reconstruction really factually is, and how large the amount of remaining evidence, and reconstructible material. Also, should the paper be mentioned in Proto-Eskimo-Aleut language or other articles? Is there recent literature on Eskimo-Aleut in the form of long-form studies, monographs, textbooks? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Technonym or occupational surname

Please state your opinion in Talk:surname#Technonym. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Crowdsourced list of linguists at WikiProject Women in Red

Hello all! I’ve just created a redlist for women in linguistics as part of WikiProject Women in Red. Would like to encourage people to jump in, edit, and create articles. Muspilli (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Flow chart for Philadelphia English article

Hi all, Josef Fruehwald uploaded File:Philadelphia Short-A Flow Chart.svg for use in Philadelphia English, but it needs some clean-up before it can be added. If anyone has the time and skills to work with SVG flow charts, feel free to lend a hand. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

IPA phones - Occurrence tables - Links

Hi, so I'm feeling free to make a suggestion here. In the process of editing Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_lateral_approximants I've discovered that references to individual languages are given either at the left after the language name, or at the right in the notes, seemingly without rhyme or reason. It is obvious to me that they should be consistently subjoined to individual statements in the notes, and that they're both difficult to detect and out of place next to language names fight me Let this be a policy proposal if anybody wants to take this up because I'm not active very on the website - too big and scary for me. Tho I can go ahead and convert that page if y'all agree. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it annoying when the exact same citation is placed under both language and note columns. User:Aeusoes1/Phone tables, which documents conventions based on old discussions from the '00s, says the citation should go in the first column, but I agree with you, they should go in the last column only (at the beginning if there is no note or if the note is cited to another source, and after the note if the citation provides verification for the note—but never after the cross reference to the phonology article). @Aeusoes1: What do you think? Nardog (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the MOS say anything about these lone footnote markers?

Language	Word	IPA	Meaning	Notes
Gibberish	foo	[fʉu̯]	'bar'	[1]

For some reason, I don't like them, but if MOS is silent about it, I won't object to have them in this default position in the absence of explicit notes. –Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found it a bit aesthetically unpleasing when inline citations appear under a dedicated column in a table (usually an accolades list, e.g. List of accolades received by Her (film)), but I find it even more discombobulating when citations appear under different columns depending on row in the same table. I bet you wouldn't dislike it as much if it appears among other cells in the same columns that have notes and cross references. Nardog (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The way we have it now has a certain meaning, which I had thought was clear: when the citation is in the Language or dialect column, it is indicating that the source is backing up the claim that the sound in question occurs in a given language/dialect. When the citation is in the notes column, it is backing up the claim that is being put in the notes column, which goes beyond simple occurrence and gives information about allophony, orthographic representation, etc. For example, Italian is given as having the same source for both the claim that the postalveolar lateral occurs in that language (Language column) and the claims that the sound is palatalized laminal and an allophone of /l/ before /ʃ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ/ (notes column).

Naturally, there are going to be a lot of instances where the same source can back up both claims, but it seems to me that, if we are going to be both clear and exhaustive in backing up our claims, we would want to put citations in both places. I could come up with specific scenarios where not doing so might be confusing; do I need to do so to indicate the importance of keeping our citations clear and consistent in this regard? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. What an inline citation indicates in general is "the preceding information can be found in this source". So if the citation appears only after the language/variety, it suggests only that the sound occurs in that language/variety, not the ensuing information, i.e. the IPA, orthography and meaning of the example word (the source sometimes does not actually provide verification for the specific example, but that's typically with a language that has a large number of native speakers and dictionaries, satisfying WP:BLUE, while the word indeed usually appears in the source when it comes to underdocumented languages). If the note is cited to the same source, then the citation after the language is completely redundant because, since the note is explaining something about the sound in the language (such as allophony), it goes without saying that the source also provides verification for the fact the sound occurs in that language. Nardog (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's really a good idea to remove a citation after a claim with the logic that placing the citation in a specific other place implies verification of the first claim. This is spurious reasoning. Sure, it's likely often true. But, again, I could come up with examples, hypothetical and possibly real, where this assumption would be incorrect. If you would like me to do so, you have but to ask. Even if what you're advocating would be clear most of the time, IMHO, we should be catering our citation policy to be clear even for rarer cases of ambiguity.

Also, if we are expected to glean from a citation in the notes column that the example word (either its orthographic representation, IPA transcription, or its meaning) is backed up in the source, then there is a whole lot of work needed to be done to clarify whether this is the case. The way I see it, it would be untoward to infer a citation for an example from anything other than a citation after the example in question. The examples are technically uncited, but citing example words is very atypical because these kinds of examples are not so thoroughly scrutinized as to require a citation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Note about brackets in language infobox

An editor has contested a recent addition of a note about brackets and delimiters in {{Infobox language}}. Input will be appreciated at Template talk:IPA notice#Brackets. Nardog (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"To play Nintendo"

Dear linguists and interested people, I have a question about the linguistic classification of the term "Nintendo". Can this company name be classified as a neologism of the 1980s when used instead of the term "video game"? Usage examples: "to play Nintendo", "I'm taking the Nintendo with me on vacation." – Gebu (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)