User talk:Nno700/sandbox

Ciara's peer review
Great lead with a thorough introduction to the language! I think there is a small grammatical error in the first sentence, when you accidentally say "spoken" twice. You could probably add a link to Ethnologue after the second sentence since that's how you knew it was a 6B endangered language. I think it's a bit confusing when you say that the language is not a written language and only has one true numeral, because I don't think these points are supposed to be related. Overall, I would just make sure your structuring tells a cohesive story, but I think you have all the main elements to a great intro!

I also really like the phonology section! There vowel and consonant sections are very clear. Is there anything unique about your vowel/consonant inventory or anything your grammar says about complex consonants or vowels? Maybe a brief mention of this would add nicely to this section!

I think you could expand on the stress section. I am not familiar with con-contrastive stress and I think an example would help here!

The morphology section looks great! I think the examples of reduplication, infixation, and cliticisation are all very clear. I think you should expand in the beginning when you say that your language lacks morphemes? Is your language isolating? Maybe just go into more depth as to what you mean by this.

You also did a thorough job on the syntax section! The only suggestion I would have is to add a subheading before the section on headedness just for clearer formatting. Maybe you could explain the definition of permuted arguments. You could also adjust the glossing a little bit to make things line up a little more tightly. Perhaps to make it more fluid, you could add some more transitions, like "below are two examples of common clauses that have the SVO word order."

Your language page looks like it's in a great place! Most of the sections are already very clear with lots of examples. I think with some small changes, and expanding in a few places, it's going to be amazing! Great work!

Ruth's peer review
Hey! This article is really well-done; it's straightforward and professional. Nice job!

Here are some thoughts I had reading it:

Clarity/content/structure things

Introduction

• what do you mean by “Jahai belongs to the Austro-Asiatic language family and is furthermore a member of the Mon Khmer language family”? Does it belong to both families, or is one of those families a subset of the other?

• I would take out where you say that it only have one true numeral. It’s a pretty specific fun fact which might be cool to include somewhere, but since the introduction is a place for broad overview, I feel like it’s out of place

Cliticisation • Can you link to something that can explain what bound morphemes are? Permuted Arguments

• Can you just flesh out/explain your bullet points a bit more? It's a little difficult to understand

Wording/specific editing things

Vowels

• I would take out the “variety” construction in the first sentence — just say “9 are oral and 7 are nasal.”

Syllable Structure

• typo: “these syllables can be divides into…”

Stress

• What about cutting the last clause of this sentence and leaving it as: “The Jahai language has a con-contrastive stress that automatically falls on the last syllable of the word.”

Morphology

• typo: “the prefix blow b-“

Permuted Arguments

• when you say “Jahai is neither mostly head-initial or head final,” what if you just said “Jahai does not favor head-initial nor head-final construction.”

• maybe don’t use the abbreviation “aux;” write it out instead? --Ruthanneliseschultz (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)