[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dmhowcroft (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 25 January 2011 (→‎Participants). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Linguistics articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 6 8 16
FL 1 4 5
GA 3 6 20 37 4 70
B 4 46 95 231 150 526
C 37 109 252 925 1 867 2,191
Start 6 90 335 2,067 1 2,153 4,652
Stub 7 58 1,164 1,367 2,596
List 13 12 30 172 73 300
Category 2,401 2,401
Disambig 1 41 42
File 15 15
Portal 1 1
Project 18 18
Redirect 1 3 22 93 445 564
Template 134 134
NA 2 9 136 147
Other 35 35
Assessed 65 274 821 4,711 3,228 4,614 13,713
Unassessed 1 94 95
Total 65 274 821 4,712 3,228 4,708 13,808
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 49,318 Ω = 4.91


Descendant Wikiprojects

Structure

Open tasks

Articles to be created

Requests for expansion

Requests for attention

  • Linguistic_modality: There is a request for attention by an expert on the page itself. I am currently teaching a graduate course on the subject and feel quite comfortable with it, so I am planning to transform it during the next few weeks. I'd welcome comments and discussions, in particular on the issue of mergin "Grammatical mood" with the page. For now, I think it would be a good idea, but I'm open for diverging views. Watasenia (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Could anyone spare a bit of time to help improving this article?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a hand in getting this article more complete, it didn't even discuss conversational styles before. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this article and improve where necessary. --Zaheen (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Athenean has alredy blanked three times (see [1], [2] and [3] 72 valid references of scholars from Gottfried Leibnitz to Shaban Demiraj to minimize the origin of the Albanian Language from Illyrian. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, Sulmues wants this incredible number of sources to highlight the (disputed) Illyrian-Albanian connection as much as possible, while conveniently ignoring any alternate theories (Thracian, Dacian). Athenean (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the speculative origins of Albanian, but 72 references does seem like too many. Sulmues, could you pare it down to maybe 5 essential, authoritative sources? Perhaps someone has already written a survey of this literature that you could simply cite? Indeterminate (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we merge these? Either at SC plus a single grammar article, or if that is too contentious, all together as an "X grammar" article? I dread the edit wars it would spark if I tried this on my own. Of course, coming up with that "X" without mortally offending s.o. may be a problem. kwami (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got it exactly right: in terms of grammar, there is no real reason to treat these separately, but in terms of politics it will be incredibly controversial to decide what to call that grammar. Omniglot uses "Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian"; both R. Katičić (1997) and R. Alexander (2006) use "Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian". Katičić, by the way, seems to suggest that this is not a proper solution (the title was chosen by his editor), as the distinctive dialects don't necessarily correspond to the national boundaries. Maybe we could undertake a broader scan of the literature - say, a survey of grammars published since 1992 - and try to determine if there is any consensus among linguists on what to call this/these language(s). Cnilep (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out we have a nicely developed Serbo-Croatian grammar that was an orphan, so it will be easier than I thought. Naming is a separate issue; we can debate on what to call it, and change our minds, independently of the merge.
As for the dialects, all four official standards are based on East Hercegovinian. The current SC grammar article restricts itself to that. We have several separate dialects articles already, and IMO they're probably good as they are.
Montenegrin will be a bit tricky, as currently we have almost nothing. It has a couple extra letters which AFAIK are not phonemic and not widely used, though there are editors who insist they're both.
From comments on the talk pages, looks like there are half a dozen editors who are supportive. No-one opposed as of yet, though I suppose that's only a matter of time. kwami (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the move discussion as stale. There was no consensus. Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orthography has a "Typology of spelling systems" that lists phonemic, morpho-phonemic, and defective as the three types. There is mention of alphabet, abjad, and syllabary only in passing and no mention of logographs. The section cites no sources and doesn't appear to reflect linguistic or related scholarship. Cnilep (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for review

Article alerts

Template:ArticleAlertbotSubscription

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Linguistics

Templates

Message for talkpages

{{WikiProject Linguistics}}

Userbox

After you sign up, you can add the project userbox to your user page by adding the following: {{User WikiProject Linguistics}}. The template pictured below will appear:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Linguistics.

Your username will then automatically be added to the Category:WikiProject Linguistics members.

Barnstar

{{subst:The Linguistic Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

The template pictured below will appear:

The Linguistic Barnstar
message with signature

Participants

Tools

Main tool page: toolserver.org
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.

External watchlist

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics&oldid=410000455"