Talk:Linguistics

• Archive 1

Contents

1 External links 2 "Su Cheng Zhong" 3 Examples 4 COTW candidate, maybe? 5 There is no such thing as "prescriptive linguistics" 6 Broadly conceived

External links

I removed the following external links from the article. I'll give a motivation below each.

• Automated word analysis for the German language (http://www.arcs.ac.at/dissdb/rn036488)
  • Not in an article about linguistics in general.
• Multilingual Morphology Software (http://www.canoo.com/wmtrans/home/index.html)
  • Maybe in Morphology, but comes close to spam anyway if you ask me.
• Grammar Book (http://www.englishpage.com/grammar/)
  • Maybe in English grammar, certainly not in this article.
• Syllabification algorithm (http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/linguist/issues/6/6-1586.html)
  • A Linguist-List discussion about syllabification certainly doesn't belong in the general article about linguistics.
• The hyphenation block (http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/global-text/short-docs/html2ps.html#hyph)
  • Can't make anything of it that would fit here.
• Centre for General Linguistics, Typology and Universals Research (ZAS) (http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de)
  • I can't see why this Centre would be particularly notable.

— mark ✎ 20:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Su Cheng Zhong"

Wikipedia is not a place for new ideas, like these by "Su Cheng Zhong." If your idea is so obscure that you need to supply an e-mail address to legitimate it, it doesn't belong here.

See also No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Examples

An extreme version of prescriptivism can be found among censors, whose personal mission is to eradicate words and structures they consider to be destructive to civilization.

As examples, 1984's Newspeak, the French Academy, "political correctness," and opposition to use of Black English Vernacular could be mentioned.

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — mark ✎ 10:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

COTW candidate, maybe?

Hi, I think one should put Edward Sapir sowewhere between Saussure Bloomfield and Harris under Important linguists and schools of thought. Is there any reason for excluding him? --Joelemaltais 10:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

kind of just a list of links right now. Maybe just request for expansion... Lockeownzj00 13:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "prescriptive linguistics"

The text in this article (and a number of other related ones) has often in the past entailed that there is such a thing as "prescriptive linguistics" or "prescriptive linguists." If we are talking about the academic discipline of linguistics (and what else could we be talking about in this article?), then I insist that there is no such thing.

I urge anybody who disagrees with this claim to apply the following standard: provide lists like the following:

• "prescriptive linguists" that currently hold positions in linguistics departments in English speaking countries;
• academic journals dedicated to supposedly "prescriptive linguistics," and whose editorial board is made almost entirely of people who hold academic positions in linguistics.

As preliminary evidence of my claim, the article mentions a number of 20th century "descriptive" linguists (scare quotes because of the redundancy), but not a single example of that mythical creature, the "prescriptive linguist."

You're absolutely right, and I'm glad that you fixed it. Thanks! — mark ✎ 06:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that prescriptive linguists may be found among the ranks of English teachers the world over. :) Cbdorsett 22:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

But aren't those the last ones we would want to call linguists :P ? — mark ✎ 00:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Broadly conceived

"Broadly conceived, ..." is a portentous way to begin a page on a subject which is about communication. It is what is known as throat-clearing. Please might the author remove it? www.danon.co.uk

Wikipedia articles have no one author. If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — mark ✎ 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but this is discussion. Thanks. www.danon.co.uk