Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:LING)

This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process.
Please see the Guide to WikiProjects and the Directory of WikiProjects for more information.

Shortcut: WP:LING

WikiProject Linguistics is, for now, just an umbrella project for WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Language families, WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Phonetics, and WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics.

Linguistics articles		Importance
Linguistics articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA				2		2
	GA	1		2			3
	B	3	6	9	5		23
	C	1	7	17	10		35
	Start	2	3	28	37		70
	Stub		2	10	39	1	52
	List			1			1
	Assessed	7	18	67	93	1	186
	Unassessed					18	18
	Total	7	18	67	93	19	204

[edit] Descendant Wikiprojects

[edit] Participants

LINGUIST List
nohat
Tariqashraf
sacundim
Alfoor
FrancisTyers
Tanzeel
CQ
Geoking66
mitcho/芳貴
johndburger
DThrax
Jangari
Indeterminate
JWB (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Msanford (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Castorquinn
Umofomia
Yeshuahasochek
Hexagon1 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
AkselGerner
Smerdis of Tlön
JAGUITAR (Contact me) 14:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
MrDebaker (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Politizer
—An gr
Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Tyciol (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Merpin
Rayizmi
Tum Dushul (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Cnilep (talk)
—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/
Lady Linguist (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Dale Chock

[edit] Structure

[edit] Open tasks

[edit] Articles to be created

informant (linguistics)
Expressive power of natural languages to deal with expressive power as differences are found among the natural languages. Issues to deal with include differences in vocabularies, the phenomenon of cultural, implied, or idiomatic meaning in expressions, logical structures and inflections. In the concept of directly comparing a statement in one language with one in another, it would appear to be necessary to illustrate the point through examples in different formats, including meaningful translation, direct transliteration, and parenthetical tags indicating hidden grammatical and semantic units. The purpose if this article would be to show how different languages form expressions and how certain types of expressions are more... expressive in certain languages. In particular I'm thinking about languages with smaller vocabularies, distinct, particular, or unregulated schemes for word assimilation, etc, and how they contrast with languages with larger vocabularies, systematic word foundations (Greek, Latin, etc) and so forth. What statements can be formulated in certain languages that can't be formulated in others, either because they lack the concept, or because the term has properties which don't translate well (meta-conceptual terms, etc)?-Ste vertigo 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
do-support
positive anymore

[edit] Requests for expansion

Lexicon

Pre-occlusion

[edit] Requests for attention

Coverbs: The article on Coverbs actually describes "converbs" and a coverb is another phenomenon altogether. I'd like this article moved to converb (which currently redirects to coverb) so that an article on coverbs can be started. Jangari 11:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverbs and converbs are two different things, but it looks like this was already resolved: Talk:Converb#Wrong_Phenomenon —Umofomia (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Set phrase: This article is heavily tagged in need of attention since March 2008 and from a quick read certainly needs it, I'm not expert on the subject but I think it's fairly wrong.86.9.126.174 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic (linguistics): This article is a confusing mess, specifically its very difficult to see how the topic is different from the subject of a sentence. Clearer examples, rules, etc as well as a short bit on the separation between topic and subject would be helpful.--Crossmr (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good and featured articles

[edit] Good articles

[edit] Featured articles

[edit] Good article candidates

[edit] Featured article candidates

Chinese classifier (FAC)

[edit] Categories

To display all subcategories click on the "+":

Linguistics

[edit] General Strategy and Discussion forum

Hi, I just created Chinese exclamative particles, should this be added to WP Linguistics? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources and language articles

Hi, I asked the following question at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), but it might be better to ask it here.

Articles about language belong to the category Linguistics. I have noticed that many editors are not aware that Linguistics is a distinct academic field. That is, they naturally assume 'Linguistics' is the domain of Literature professors, Educational bodies/Boards of Education, or published grammarians. This is understandable, since modern Linguistics doesn't hit 50 until next year.

How best to redress this in the policies and guidelines, and what is the process for getting it done?

I left out common knowledge ("I speak English, so I know what the vocabulary is/how English works" etc).

I think it's partly a matter of adding a page or section to the Reliable Sources sections of Policy and Guidelines for where to look for reliable sources for the category, and so being able to reference it. This might cut down on unnecessary discussion. I don't see it as a problem with the technical articles, naturally, but there are many more articles concerning (English, particularly) language and language use than these.

Thoughts appreciated.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give some explicit examples of articles you've found with problematic sourcing? —An gr 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure.

This sort of old chestnut (authority of the grammarian):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_differences&diff=269043616&oldid=268914581

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_differences&diff=267706881&oldid=267706214

and associated talk comments like this:

In what way is a book by Dr Paul Brians, from the English Faculty at Washington State, not a reliable source?

Individual edits and some dubious sourcing on lists like these (authority of the speaker):

List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_British_and_American_English

Completely unsourced lists similar to the above (now deleted).

Did a search for dialect just now and the first article I looked at was completely unsourced:

List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language

Comments on AfDs, such as the below re The_six_traits_of_writing

Comment - it turns out that this concept is used throughout the us as a Teahcing Tool for the education of writing. For example, it smentioned here at the Edina tteaching website, here at the Center for Teaching Advancement webpage, against a Teaching That Makes Sense training website, again here at the Reynolds Institute, a prestigious institutaiton, and it even has a book atout which is avialable on this lit website. I am reviewing WP:RS to determine whether or not htise constitute reliable sources; if anyone can help me decide or adjucdicate this matter it may help to inform this debate, thank you for your consideration.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I see the sort of thing you're talking about. I've been having trouble too trying to keep personal observations out of Northeast Pennsylvania English and Non-native pronunciations of English. I don't know how to solve it other than on a case-by-case basis, reminding people that WP:V and WP:NOR apply to articles on linguistics too, and assuring them that academic sources are in most cases out there somewhere if they know where to look for them. —An gr 20:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking through the guidelines. I suggest a page on "reliable sources for language related articles"

Science and other subject areas have these pages. Linked to from WP:RS.

Mention which topics are covered by Linguistics (anything about language itself - word lists etc)

Say what aren't reliable sources.

Remind that WP:V and WP:NOR etc apply.

Suggest some places to look for sources.

Mention change (keeping sources up to date)

I'm happy to draft it, because - even to the extent it has to be dealt with case by case - having an authoritative page to link to is very handy.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! —An gr 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consternaton over Wikipedia's format for phoneme tables

I am astonished that a standard arrangement of phonemes has become institutionalized at Wikipedia. I refer to putting nasals on the top row. If I have ever seen this in the literature, I can't recall it. How did this happen, and how can it be undone? Dale Chock (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

~~See File:IPA chart 2005.png. This is the official IPA phoneme chart. Regards --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Oops, my mistake --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the official IPA phoneme chart. It's a phoneme chart made by User:Kwamikagami. The IPA chart in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association puts the plosives first, then the nasals. Even that strikes me as odd; it's much more intuitive to put the obstruents together (first plosives, then affricates, then fricatives) and then put the sonorants together. +An gr 10:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my thinking, 'cept the nasal stops are also (articulatory) obstruents, with ties to oral stops in many languages. (Okay, you get n~l a lot, but not much more than r~z, and it would break up the laterals.) So it's stops, then running down the lenition cline, then rhotics, then laterals, repeating the above. Sonorants aren't a coherent group the way obstruents are. Placing the nasals at the top isn't original with me, and when I saw it, it made a lot of sense as a more intuitive arrangement. kwami (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems quite counterintuitive to me! At any rate, it isn't really true that the nasal-first listing has become "institutionalized" at Wikipedia; lots of articles list plosives first. And there's always some wiggle room for language-dependent reasons; at Irish phonology I merged fricatives and approximants together into one row because /w/ and /j/ pattern phonologically as voiced fricatives in that language. +An gr 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

[edit] Message for talkpages

[edit] User Template

[edit] Barnstar

[edit] Portal:Linguistics

I've spent quite a bit of time revamping the portal, adding date-based rotating content, and adding a few new secitons. I have just submitted it for portal peer review, and invite everyone to participate, here: Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review/Linguistics/archive1. --Msanford (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)