Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Archive 4

Subjacency
Hey all, I'm a newcomer to wikiproject:linguistics. Just posting here because I noticed there is no Subjacency page and was planning on fixing that. I have a sandbox going (it's very bare at the moment, but I'm working on it). Please feel free to add/comment! UMich215SSG (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone ID this lang?
WP-es has an article on Umbrá. It is supposedly still spoken in Colombia and unclassified. Does it go under a different name in English? I can't find anything at Ethn. or LingList. — kwami (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were here, I'd PROD it on the grounds of unverifiability. —Angr (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find it in the Archive of indigenous languages of Latin America. Cnilep (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be another case of a people where we know their name but nothing about their language. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Shakespeare's name
I'm hoping people familiar with the history of English spelling might take an interest in a new article: Spelling of Shakespeare's name. There has been a lot of interest in the fact that there are many variations on how "Shakespeare" is spelled in various historical documents. Much of the interest is fringe nonsense associated with the Shakespeare authorship question, but there is also genuine interest in the history of the wider issue, where Shakespeare's name is simply a well known example of variation in spelling. Is there an article with information on when spelling correctness and consistency became important, and why? Would someone like to add a wikiproject header at Talk:Spelling of Shakespeare's name? Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * English spelling is generally reckoned to have become fixed after the introduction of William Caxton's printing press to England in (if memory serves) c.1475. As with most questions of social history, the facts are more complicated than a single date, and English spelling was still somewhat variable during Shakespeare's lifetime. Sorry, I don't have a reliable source for that easily to hand, but here's a primary source for variable spelling well after the Bard's death: Nothing Compares 2 U (c.1985). Cnilep (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Humm, helpful. I'm surprised you didn't link to Shakespears Sister, which would at least have been relevant. Paul B (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My first instinct was to link to Lite, but that's a DAB. Come to think of it maybe that's better: the spelling is so common that it must be disambiguated. Cnilep (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (sexual neologism)
This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (sexual neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (sexual neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Santorum (sexual neologism)

articulation needing attention
This should probably be reviewed, to make sure it doesn't duplicate a concept we already cover, or have other explanations in the lit: — kwami (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonexplosive stop

AfD nomination for English conjugation tables
The article English conjugation tables has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/English conjugation tables. Please participate! Duoduoduo (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Could use some input at Voiceless alveolar retroflex fricative‎. Is this sound 'retroflex' in the normal sense of the word? Or is it just hollow, as English and Mandarin /s/ are? — kwami (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Linguistics related navigational template nominated for deletion
The navigational template Political neologisms has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion, at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)
Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism).
 * Santorum (neologism)
 * Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion
I've nominated Inflectional morphology for deletion here on the grounds that it is a stub that is redundant with respect to Inflection. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"appear → apparent"
"appear → apparent" does not seem to fit any of the six patterns now listed in trisyllabic laxing. Should a seventh pattern be added? Are there other examples that fit that seventh pattern? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's a variant of the first pattern, iː → ɛ, though in this case both vowels are r-colored. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's rather that it doesn't fit the bill at all: "when followed by two syllables". In the word "apparent", the vowel in question is only followed by one syllable, and forms with two syllables ("apparently") are only derivations. Trigaranus (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in accents that distinguish more vowels before /r/ than American English does, apparent has /æ/, not /ɛ/. Angr (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ELL2 template
I've gotten tired of entering ELL2 citations, so I've created a template, ELL2, modeled after the improvements made to my old SOWL. First parameter is entry author, and second is entry title, both optional. Feel free to improve further (page & volume?).

If there are other book templates like this, please add them to the same category, so we can find them easily. (Or move them all to a new category, if you think another one would be better.) — kwami (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Common descent
I added a hatlink and some see also entries to the common descent article which currently represents the subject as if it had only to do with evolutionary biology and nothing else, even though Darwin himself was aware of the concept in historical linguistics. I have been reverted with the command that linguistics has nothing to do with the subject. Please comment at that article's talk page whether the linguistic concept is important enough to require the creation of a DAB page and a separate article, or, as I believe, at hatnote and see also entries sufficiently deal with the issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The opposing editor seems to have changed his mind, but some attention and other views could still be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested


WikiProject Writing Systems is conducting a poll regarding its future goals, and we have identified you as a person with a vested interest in the future of that project. Whether you are a member of the WikiProject, a frequent contributor, or a passerby with an interest in the subject, we want your input as to the future emphasis that the Writing Systems project will take. Please take a moment to peruse the entries and add your comments where you have an opinion. You can visit the poll by clicking here, or on the project image, 書, on the right.

Proposed merger of Domain specificity into Metaphorical code-switching
I have proposed Domain specificity and metaphorical code-switching for merger with Metaphorical code-switching. Anyone interested in the merge discussion is invited to participate at Talk:Metaphorical code-switching. Cnilep (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability‎‎ - Machine Translation - Request for Comments

 * Comments are requested from all interested editors at a discussion to amend WP:V. Please participate. Do you support the proposal to amend the guidance in WP:NONENG regarding the use of machine translations, as given below? Please note that the scope of WP:NONENG is limited to the translation of non-English sources for use in English Wikipedia.

The proposal is to replace this sentence in WP:NONENG :


 * Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.

with the following :


 * Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, and should always be attributed. A machine translation may be used in the text of the article only if the Wikipedian speaks the source language and confirms the accuracy of the translation.


 * Footnote: Attributions and confirmations may be provided on the talk page or in the edit summary.

Please add your comments at WP:V:talk and not here. Thanks.  Rubywine. talk 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Intransitive verb
Hi, this article has no references and has been tagged since 2007. Is someone able to add some citations and generally have a look at the text? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)