User talk:Bluefeather98/sandbox

Peer Review
FIRST READ: Why is it significant to mention that the inland people have moved to coastal villages? Does this mean their dialect has changed?

All sections are included!

PHONOLOGY: Missing lead in for consonants and vowels – the section that essentially recites the places and manners of articulation.

No information seems to be missing but a broad overview in each of the sounds sections would be helpful for orientation purposes. You have the small paragraph at the top of the phonology section, so maybe moving the information about number of sounds to the appropriate consonant or vowel section would be helpful to avoid redundancy. You can keep the information about dialect in the blurb above consonants though!

If you have any more information or details to share about each of the subsections then that would be helpful so that the subsections feel more summarized and meaty.

MORPHOLOGY: I liked the derivational affix section. It’s succinct and it has all the information we’d want with examples. Only thought is why the format for the ‘waia’ example is different from the others. Might be easier to read if there were all the same format.

For the non-derivational affix section, it would be a nice intro to the reader if you said that this possessor prefix has three different specific functions. When I read it, I thought it was only for the classic form of possession and was a bit confused when I saw the other types.

Your morphology section is very thorough! I like it and you have a lot of examples that are clear!

SYNTAX: In syntax, is the complementizer pair the only exception to the trend? If not or if you can’t be sure, maybe don’t include that it’s the only exception since that is an inference. You can say “an exception…”

It might make it easier to read if you created a subsection for basic word order and another for headedness.

OVERALL: I really liked your morphology section. It seemed like you spent time on it and put effort into making sure you represented your language well.

I think your phonology section could be fleshed out more. Like explaining in words the different sounds in your language. For example, “there are two front vowels” and such. It seems lonely compared to your morphology section.

Clairenk (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall The Phonology section and the Syntax section seem to only hold the bare minimum. I’m not sure if that’s because the main focus of your grammar is on morphology (which it likely is), or there is more undiscovered material about the first and last sections :) That being said, I do get a good grasp about your syntax and phonology so perhaps it’s not a huge thing to worry about. I repeat this a lot, but I really enjoyed your examples. They were easy to follow, well-placed, and simple. I thought the flow of the article made sense, especially keeping the different types of affixes together. Maybe compounds and reduplication could be placed next to each other, though? And maybe clitics could be moved to the top of the morphology section since it seems to be the most important?

Lead I really enjoyed your lead :) It made a lot of sense and was easy to read. I think linking it to other Wiki pages could help give some context as to what region of Papua New Guinea we are looking at.

Phonology Lead: “Main Dialect” is that supposed to say Maia? I see that they likely mean the same thing, but consistency would be good. Consonants: Is the phoneme /k/ categorized as a voiced or voiceless velar? Unfortunately do to the formatting, it’s sitting in no man’s land.

Morphology Lead: I really liked you initial lead, and all the subsection leads for Morphology! Short but to the point. For the initial, maybe a link to what “synthetic fusional” means could be really helpful. Non-Directional Affixes: The use of gloss-examples was well placed :) Really nice job explaining the example. I think helping to clear up what the letters mean in the second line of the gloss could help readers get a clearer picture of the sentence’s meaning. I think the way you embed examples into the text is really well done! Compounds: what does it mean to be a “coordinate” compound noun, and if a compound noun is not coordinate, what else can it be? Clitics: I’m a little torn on this section. Obviously clitics are a huge part of your language and how it functions so this section needs to be meaty. On the other hand, this section seems to overpower the article. Up to personal discretion on how to move forward. Stress: There’s some repetitiveness from the “person prefixes” subsection, but not too much. Reduplication: not sure if “interestingly” can be kept because it announces personal judgment...I could be too nit-picky though. Great job with connecting an explanation of a morphological process to an example in this section!

Syntax I would prefer more this section to be broken up into headings and subheadings to get some structure like your previous sections :) “which is alone head-initial” seems like an awkward phrase, and redundant given hwat comes before it. I really liked that you underlined what words to pay attention to in the complementizer/subordinate+clause principle gloss! I think doing that for your other gloss examples could be beneficial. Ckl17 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)