Talk:Conservative and innovative language

Romanian language
Is Romanian the second of the most conservative Romance languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:D800:B4E0:AA07:ED1E:2844:798D:B5C0 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is no consensus for the proposed move to Conservative and innovative (linguistics), as it is opposed by three users and supported by only one. There is some support for the alternative move to Conservative and innovative language, as it is supported by three users and opposed by only one. There is some support for the alternative move to Linguistic innovation, as it is supported by two users and opposed by one. There is some support for keeping the current title Linguistic conservatism, as it is preferred by one user and not explicitly opposed by any.

But, based on arguments, the alternative title that seems to have the most support and the least opposition is Conservative and innovative language. It seems to avoid some of the problems that the other alternatives have, such as implying a stance or belief system, a philosophy or practice, a classification of language varieties, or a degree of advancement or development. It also seems to reflect the common names used in linguistic literature, as suggested by the nominator, User:Wolfdog. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Linguistic conservatism → Conservative and innovative (linguistics) – Unlike Linguistic conservatism, this page is about two words which are relational antonyms (two mutually dependent concepts): conservative and innovative (as used in the discipline of linguistics, of course). The "ism" in "conservatism" may also misguide a reader into thinking the topic here is a stance or belief system of some kind. The WP:COMMONNAMES throughout linguistic literature are certainly conservative and innovative. Wolfdog (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Move to Conservative and innovative language per WP:NOUN. An alternative I still prefer over the current name is Linguistic innovation, without which there would be no conservatism to begin with, though like "conservatism" it might falsely suggest a deliberate attempt (which it is not). Nardog (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't like that name—a language variety isn't usually classifiable as "conservative" or "innovative"; most have a mix of preserved features (that might be altered in other related varieties) and innovative features. I'd prefer Linguistic innovation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why it's the uncountable "language", not "languages", i.e. langage not langue. Nardog (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that this is what argued above. I still think that your title makes it sound like a language is classifiable as "conservative" or "innovative". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of Nardog's "Conservative and innovative language" as well as another alternative I'll propose here: "Linguistic conservatism and innovation", if we insist on a noun or noun phrase. My biggest goal is that both concepts be somehow represented in the title. Wolfdog (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While "conservative" and "innovative" may be relational antonyms, "innovation" and "conservatism" are not. For one, one is countable and the other is not. And conservatism is a lack of certain innovations other varieties have. Without innovations there is no conservatism. Nardog (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, hey! I tried to offer alternatives, haha! Wolfdog (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perspective of an outsider here (to the field of linguistics) - the current title seems better to me. "Conservative and innovative (linguistics)" sounds like a philosophy of some kind, or a practice. My thinking, having never encountered these terms before five minutes ago, is that if they are two separate things, then they should have two separate pages. If they are not two separate concepts, then choosing one or the other seems more natural and educational to me.
 * And, if we are to choose between one or the other, "linguistic conservatism" is more self-descriptive than "linguistic innovation". When I saw the term "linguistic conservatism" on another page, I could immediately get a semi-accurate idea of what that meant. But if I saw "linguistic innovation" instead, it would seem very confusing to me, especially because I saw the term in a historical context. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you describe in your own words the idea of what "linguistic conservatism" meant that you got when you saw it? Nardog (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, the immediate inference was something along the lines of "resisting language change". I didn't know anything beyond that, hence coming to the article. But I think that if I had not clicked on the page link, I would have been better able to understand what I was reading than with the other phrasing. In that context, it compared an extinct language to one which was "more conservative" - if the title were "conservative and innovative (linguistics)" when I hovered the mouse over, then I might be inclined to believe that it had something to do with the politics and/or culture of the times, or perhaps a philosophical view of the languages/cultures based on some modern theory I didn't know about. And if the context had simply used the term innovative then I would have been much more confused - innovation in language? Did they have earlier writing systems, or more complexity of functional words? Did the language/people that were not "innovative" later adopt/absorb the linguistic concepts of the "innovative" people?
 * For these reasons, I think that the current page name is more intuitive. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And who/what did you think was doing the resisting? Didn't it strike you as a conscious effort by the speakers of the language variety? I think that's where our uneasiness to the current name ultimately comes from (even though we can't agree on the best alternative). Conservatism is not resisting language change; it's being left behind by it. "Innovation" isn't incapable of implying intentionality either, but it at least doesn't leave you with a wrong impression, and is not nearly as misleading as an -ism. Nardog (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, it was a historical context - "resist" just means that change didn't occur much over time. No, it does not strike me as a conscious effort, because after a brief association with present-day politics. There are a variety of words which stem from "conserve" or "conservative" that have nothing to do with conscious efforts of the sort - conservatory, conservationism, conservative management in my field of medicine, etc.
 * I am saying that "innovation" absolutely leaves me with the wrong impression, because it implies that if one language is more "innovative" than another, then that means reaching benchmarks earlier - not an overall lack of change. I'd even go so far as to say that "innovative" is an ill-chosen word for this subject altogether. I feel that this may be lost on those who are already familiar with the terminology, and while I would like to avoid the negative/biased associations that our present day has with the word "conservatism", ultimately I believe the proposed change to be a much worse alternative. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems like there's no ideal title here, but oppose any adjectival titles per WP:NOUN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * I would not support a move to 'Conservative and innovative (linguistics)' but would accept a move to 'Conservative and innovative language', as Nardog suggests. See also /Archive 1, where both Nardog and I suggested something similar. Cnilep (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would Nardog have to start a whole new discussion thread for a title at least three of us support? Wolfdog (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the closer can opt a name that was not proposed by the nominator if they see a consensus for it. Nardog (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Most conservative Romance language(s)
An anonymous editor recently changed the article from version 1 to version 2, below (emphasis added). I reverted the change, however, as there does not seem to be support for it in the current sources, at least the ones I could check. Pei (1949, p.20) says, "[A] tongue like Sardinian, comparatively sheltered from the rest of the world, has changed little from the original Latin", Contini and Tuttle (1982, p. 171) say Sardinian "is at once the most archaic and the most highly individual among the Romance group", and Romance Languages (Alkire and Rosen 2010, p. 3) says, "Sardinian is best known for retaining certain features of Latin elsewhere lost." I don't have Harris and Vincent (2003), but a Google Books search suggests that book also names Sardinian without also naming Italian.
 * 1) Sardinian (especially the Nuorese dialects) is regarded by many linguists as being the most conservative Romance language.
 * 2) Sardinian (especially the Nuorese dialects) and Italian are, among the Romance languages, the most conservative both lexically and phonetically.

Please remember to cite a reliable source for any additions, and please take care not to give the impression that cited sources support ideas that they do not discuss. Cnilep (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're already aware, but it may be a good reminder to other editors too: the degree to which any given dialect is innovative or conservative in contrast to its neighbors/peers is a complex issue, often steeped in social prejudices (stigma, pride, etc.) and assumptions. Even from a fairly empirical point of view, a dialect may be conservative in certain ways in its phonology but innovative in other certain ways in its syntax. I doubt we'll get any account of Sardinian, e.g., being conservative in all the ways where it can be labelled "the most conservative Romance language" in some monolithic or definitive sense, across-the-board. We should be cautious with wording and with sources; just a general reminder! Wolfdog (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)