Talk:Morphological typology

message: :Morphemes may also be expressed by internal phonological changes in the root (i.e. morphophonology), such as consonant gradation and vowel gradation, or by suprasegmental features such as stress or tone, which are of course inseparable from the root.
I have trouble understanding this bit. I thought suprasegmentals were not lexically distinctive, and hence separable from all segments or groups of segments. --Kjoonlee 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the article wrong? If yes, then it needs to be corrected. Is it correct? In that case, I hope it gets a bit clearer. --Kjoonlee 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "lexically distinctive", but morphemes can be expressed by suprasegmental features.  See, e.g., this on floating tones. Rmalouf (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suprasegmental features 

message: ...are not in this article. I would find it most helpful if someone added them. --124.170.35.1 09:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oligosynthetic & Isolating Language Summaries 

message: In this page, languages are divided in "analytic" and "synthetic" ones, but in the box on the right they're classified as "isolating" and "synthetic".
The correct classification should be:
* Analytic: Isolating (and other kinds?)
* Synthetic: Polysynthetic, Fusional, Agglutinative
Isolating languages are the only subset of analytic languages described on Wikipedia, and the page Analytic language redirects to Isolating language. But "isolating" is a kind of analytic"!
The fact that both the Analytic language page and that the "Analytic" voice in the right box are missing can create some confusion.
I suggest to change "Isolating" with "Analytic" in the right box, and to create a short Analytic language page (in this case, "Isolating" can be indicated as a kind of "Analytic" in the right box).
--Taekwondavide (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is some confusion with terminology 

message: I'm trying to put together a tentative list of the languages of the world with the linguistic features of each. It's a huge task and I don't have time to do it on my own. Please come here - User:Bienfuxia/List of languages by linguistic features - and help out a bit, when it's ready I can publish it as a proper article. This is one occasion where wiki is missing something substantive that it should have, please come along and do what you can! Bienfuxia (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New list 

message: This article relies on the simplistic and now mostly abandoned typological classification of languages into morphological macrotypes such as analytic, isolating, polysynthetic etc. These are not really considered relevant typological categories by any linguists any more. The article should not be structured around these categories. I would recommend describing all of the traditional macrotypes in a single section. Also the only way that these types make sense is by classifying specific words or morphemes as using one or the other type. Noone classifies languages as "being" of X type anymore, since all languages include different types of morphology. WALS is cited as the exponent of this view, but WALS (which is produced by the worlds foremost typologists) is simply describing the actual consensus within linguistics. This is the viewpoint that should be the main viewpoint in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide some scholars who disagree, and some evidence that they're dominant nowadays? Because despite the fact that I myself find the traditional convention over-simplistic, I've seen very little protestation from scholars. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Sapir in 1921 called the typology "popular" and then went on to argue that it was little useful. Ive referred to some typology textbooks below, you should look and see how they describe the traditional typology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

text: No time or spoons to deal with it now, but Fusion of Selected Inflectional Formatives, Exponence of Selected Inflectional Formatives, and the references in both may help with the missing information and maybe (some of) the missing references. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Where else should it be listed? It doesn't have to be a large section. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably shouldnt because it is never mentioned in descriptions of linguistic typology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

text: It's not "based on" anything. The article had zero citations before I started editing it, so I have no idea where most of it came from. Heck, a lot of what remains on the page is OR that I haven't checked. The citations present are only ones I've sought out to verify claims I foresaw being controversial. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not blaming you, but making a statement about the current state of the article. I recommend using Comrie's "Language UNiversals and Linguistic Typology", Laurie Bauers "Introducing Linguistic Morpohology", Crofts "Typology and Universals" and Whaley's "Introduction to Typology" to find out how contemporary linguistic typologists work with morphology, and use that knowledge as a basis for structuring the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this article

message: Oligosynthesis is not and has never been seriously considered a morphological type. Giving it a section is a lot of undue weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Where else should it be listed? It doesn't have to be a large section. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably shouldnt because it is never mentioned in descriptions of linguistic typology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Oligosynthesis

message: This article should be based on the main linguistic literature about typology. Not willi-nilli picked publications.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "based on" anything. The article had zero citations before I started editing it, so I have no idea where most of it came from. Heck, a lot of what remains on the page is OR that I haven't checked. The citations present are only ones I've sought out to verify claims I foresaw being controversial. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not blaming you, but making a statement about the current state of the article. I recommend using Comrie's "Language UNiversals and Linguistic Typology", Laurie Bauers "Introducing Linguistic Morpohology", Crofts "Typology and Universals" and Whaley's "Introduction to Typology" to find out how contemporary linguistic typologists work with morphology, and use that knowledge as a basis for structuring the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature

message: Johanna Nichols concepts of dependent and headmarking morphology are also morphological types, of a more functional nature, and not based on Sapirs notion of the synthesis/fusion indexes. This distinction is more commonly used in contemporary morphological typology than the traditional macrotypes. It should be included. Whaley's introduction to typology has a good description of both Sapir and Nichols systems in chapter 8.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Headmarking/Dependent marking

message: I think that the translation that is marked with  falls under you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Translations are obvious information, no matter how obscure the language (provided it is still alive). Amp2001 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polysynthetic subsection: translation requires source