User talk:Sdeneher/sandbox

Janie's Peer Review
LEAD

The lead section looks good, gives a brief overview of the language and its current status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefeather98 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

PHONOLOGY

Very thorough phonology section! Just for consistency/symmetry, I think an additional table could be added that shows the place of articulation for the nasal vowels, positioned adjacent to the third “Vowel Phonemes” table.

Also, putting the oral and nasal vowel tables adjacent to each other instead of one after the other might look more stream-lined— not a big deal either way!

MORPHOLOGY

For the morphology section, I think you could add in a sentence about what type of language Onondaga is (e.g., agglutinating, synthetic, etc).

Also, organizing the classes/affixes listed into tables might be more manageable/reader-friendly, since the whole section will get longer once examples are added. There could be a table for the components of the verb, and another table for the components of the noun. If you wanted to provide examples of the four kinds of particles, I think putting it in table form would be nice.

I appreciated the little summarizing intro paragraph at the beginning of both the phonology and morphology sections-- these provided a good overview of the details to follow.

SYNTAX

The italicizing of the lead-in sentence for each example is really helpful for the reader in differentiating between which sentences are examples and which aren't!

Minor detail, but maybe add in a line break before the example for "Sahahde̜yáʔ" just for consistency.

Also, does your grammar not mention headedness at all? I’m guessing your language doesn’t have a preference for head-initial/head-final because of free word order, but I think mentioning even that would be good.

Overall, article looks great!

Bluefeather98 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Julie's Peer Review
Overall, great job! I can tell that your language has very complex morphology (I struggled with this too - basically all of my language's syntax was handled by verbal morphology), but you did a good job covering the relevant topics for a wikipedia page. I would suggest that you include some examples in the morphology section, though, since it seems incomplete as it is without those examples to visualize what you are explaining. Good job though, and I look forward to seeing the final product!

Lead Section
Your lead section is nicely done! It is succinct but includes all the necessary and relevant information to introduce the language. Just remember to link to any other Wikipedia articles that appear in you article, including the locations mentioned and the language family, if those pages exist.

Vowels
I really like all of your charts! They're very informative and easy to read. I'm just unsure why you decided to use the symbols that you did in the Vowel Phonemes chart, since you seem to be using the "Phone" symbols from the Nasal Vowels chart rather than the phonemic representation. I think we should be using the phonemic representation for our Wikipedia pages. You also can omit the "Central" column since no phonemes are placed there.

Consonants
Nice job again! Your charts are very thorough.

Syllable Structure
I would suggest that you either rename this section to "Syllable Structure and Stress" or elaborate on stress in its own section, since it is a pretty important part of a language that should be highlighted. I also think that you meant to put the second table underneath the paragraph that follows it.

Also, you can create lists by using the star "*" instead of using a) b) c). This might make your wikipedia article more readable.

It might also be good to include a few examples of words that follow the syllable patterns you mention.

Morphology
I'm a bit confused about what you mean by "lexical elements" here. Do you mean root morphemes? Maybe this would be something to ask Prof. Kalin or a course assistant if your grammar uses the term, since it's a bit vague to me.

I can't comment much on this section since there are no examples (which I see that you have noted), but nonetheless, your descriptions are really well done and show a good understanding of your grammar and the details of the morphology of your language. This will really come through once you put in some examples.

There are still some terms that probably need more explaining though, because they are not in my vocabulary at least: the three types of pronominal prefixes (the agent series, the patient series, and the transitive series); the three basic aspect categories (the habitual, the stative, and the punctual); pro-forms; and discourse-pragmatic functions.

Syntax
I found your syntax section to be really interesting! My language also has a complex morphological system that makes syntax relatively free in comparison to other languages (with the use of pronominal prefixes on verbs). Good examples and explanation of the word order! I would just suggest including a section on headedness including the information we were required to provide for the syntax practicum.

Juliekallini (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)