Talk:Language/Archive 1

message: For transcription used by some authors, check out http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm----
I call that opinion. Accurate according to whom. Yes the IPA is accurate, and perhaps there should be a link to it here. But, Samba is surely counter-intuitive and hardly the only choice for transcription or even computer transcription.
The advantage of SAMPA is that it's very close to IPA (you'll most certainly find a link to IPA on the SAMPA page). 
And BEING COUNTER-INTUITIVE is not a disadvantage at all, since IPA is also counter-intuitive - especially to speakers of English. Linguistics is very often counter-intuitive, and that probably applies to science in general. I don't think there is a more scientific and more computer-friendly system out there. Of course, /u/ instead of <oo> is counter-intuitive to speakers of English, of course /S/ instead of <sh> seems strange, but only because <sh> is the grapheme you learn in school. In linguistics (especially phonetics and phonology), it doesn't really make sense to write <sh> instead of /S/. Of course those are all opinion, since there is no TRUTH in general. Of course I think it would be agood idea to use SAMPA throughout, but it's maybe better to include a transcription closer to English PLUS a more scientific transcription. Although SAMPA is not THAT hard to learn, I don't wanna force anyone to do so.----
Yes- that is 80% opinion at least. Further, this is a site where anyone can use whatever transcription system they like, and even, though it would be rude, anyone change someone else's transcription system. In my opinion, any transcription system that includes numbers rather than letters is more counter-intuitive than one that tries to confine itself to 
relatively familiar alphabets. Furthermore, British English speakers are brought up on the IPA, due to the influence of the OED, unlike Americans, and find it quite natural. 
---
yeah, sure, I'd prefer to write in IPA, though that's not possible for technical reasons now is it? Sure, people with linguistic training from the UK feel that IPA is quite natural, but even IPA transcriptions may vary. Anyway... I don't think it would be a good idea to exclude SAMPA or IPA transcriptions. SAMPA only has SOME numbers, it's mainly or as far as possible it's identical with IPA. 
--- I'll include ORTHOGRAPHY in the LINGUISTICS SECTION, because orthography is not language per se, but it is part of linguistics. 
----
The subject of how to indicate pronunciations on Wiki pages is a complicated one, and simple solutions to complicated problems are frequently a bad idea.  For many uses, something very simple and English-centric like the system used in the Jargon File would be adequate.  But it's clearly not adequate for many other uses here, particularly when describing foreign languages.  Using more than one system has its own drawbacks, and is more complicated overall than using one.  Yes, SAMPA (or a competing IPA-based system such as the one used on sci.lang) is probably overkill and difficult to learn for many; but the technology here can be arranged to make it simpler.  For example, the server already recognizes "ISBN XXX..." in Wiki text and automatically makes links to more detailed information about a book.  It could do a similar thing with "SAMPA XXX...", automatically creating a link to a page explaining SAMPA, perhaps even a sound clip.  It is possible that in the future, it could display real IPA symbols when Unicode fonts become more available.  Most important, though, is that IPA-based information is information-preserving while simpler systems might not be, so we can add those features without needing more information.  For that reason alone, I think it is important that we adopt some IPA-based standard.  --LDC
----
yeah... dunno about the jargon file... the question is: is it used in linguistics? 
----
No, it would be wholly inadequate for that; it's just a simple ad-hoc.  I only mention it to say that it would br appropriate to use in some contexts (notably the jargon file itself, which describes jargon to English-speakers who aren't linguists).  Surely we will need a more complete IPA-based system for linguistics articles in general, but that doesn't rule out the use of simpler methods for other uses. --LDC
----
This article says programming languages lack "discreteness".  What does that mean? -LC
No answer for the last 4 months.  I've removed the word.  If anyone wants to put it back, please define it.  -LC
-----
Why does the introduction the concept 'language' START with machine language rather than with the human phenonmenon? It makes for a clever paragraph, but really now! --MichaelTinkler
I have removed the sentence that says that language is a technology. Just read the definiton in the technology entry.  Calypso
----
I'm removing this, which has no place here until someone can provide a more in-depth description of both the nature of animal languages and which definitions of "language" they don't live up to:
:Most often, the term refers to vocal languages. Animal "languages" can be quite complex; but they do not satisfy the criteria linguists use to define a true language. A language must have a full grammar and be able to be used in any context to express any idea. Among the animals, humans alone have been proven to have a true language instead of a simple means of communicating a limited set of things such as danger, readiness to mate, or location/proximity.
--Ryguasu 07:14 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
----
i wanna to know about the theoretically base for verbal memorising (in China, we use the word "recite")in EFL/ESL for middle school students. 1. Does "verbal memorising" equally mean " rote memorising", if not, why? 2. If "verbal memorising" is effective, then , how can it benefits the future real communication? 3. If "verbal memorising" isn't effective, and the immersion method (eg,in Canada)is still far to be proven as effective, in countries such as China, Japan where English input is badly not enough, what can we do? 
 Thanks for any suggestion, more detailed information is esp. welcome.
 Email: pan_nelson@21cn.com
----
:Mathematics and computer science use artificial entities called formal languages (including programming languages)
Is it actually correct to say that a programming language is a kind of formal language? I admit that there is a set S of syntactically valid programs for a given language L. Now, following Formal language, we could say that L is nothing more than S. However, this seems misleading, because L has not only a syntax by a semantics. Thus I'm confused if someone is seriously claiming that programming languages are formal languages, no more, no less. --Ryguasu 04:18 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
Hey VeryVerily, have you ever learned Esperanto, that you can judge, if and how good and easy Esperanto works? How many other languages do you speak? Tell me why you found the remark about Esperantto had to be removed? Give me reasons!!! --Halsbandsittich from Wikipedia deutsch
----
The text says:  Chomsky (1986) points out that "some dialects of German are very close to dialects that we call 'Dutch' and are not mutually intelligible with others that we call 'German'". ' Hahaha this looks very funny. It is like citing George Washington who says that 'it is rainy today' That fact does not make it more noteworthy because George Washington himself said it, does it? How many people may have "pointed it out" before? :-))) Flyingbird 23:41, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

message: I am writting linguistic pages in Serbian Wikipedia. English versions are base for that. During the translation of the part "Human languages" of this page, I think I have description for that part. As my English is not good enough (as well as I don't work on this page), I will not paste it into the article. I ask someone who is working on this page to take my suggestions.
It is necessary to make distinction between "real", used languages and standard languages. Standard language exists util supporting political structure exists; "real" language doesn't have so strong relation with political structures. Standard language has strong political and ethnical influences; "real" language doesn't have. Even standard and "real" language has relations.
The best example for this is South Slavic language area: from Black Sea at the East to the Alpes at the West; from South Hungary at the North to the North Greece at the South. There are seven standard languages (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Montenegrian, Bosnian or Bosniak, Croatian and Slovenian) with one "dead" standard language (Serbo-Croatian). At the other hand, there is only one dialect continuum: going from the West of Balkan to the East and from the North of Balkan to South -- there is no so distinctive differences between two places so we can say that two of them belongs to two different languages.
Standard Bulgarian language is based on Eastern dialects of Bulgarian language area, and standard Serbian language is based on Western dialect of Serbian language area. Speakers of Western Bulgarian dialects and speakesr of Eastern Serbian dialects speaks with the same language and there is no difficulties in communication between them. But, speakers of standard Serbian language and speakers of standard Bulgarian language have difficulties in communication even they can communicate (if they have good will). The same situation is between Serbian and Bulgarian at one side and Macedonian at another; as well as between Croatian and Slovenian.
Things become more bizare when we try to make distinction between four standard languages born after the death of standard Serbo-Croatian language. Even differences between standard Serbian, Montenegrian, Bosnian or Bosniak and Croatian language are minimal and we can't say that there is more then one "linguistic" language. But, political and ethnical feeling of speakers of that "languages" say that they are using only "lanugage" wich has the same name with therir ethnicity and country.
Because of that it is important to know that standard lanugage is political, not linguistic category. And linguists try to describe both: standard and "real" language.
--Millosh 08:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points.  This discussion is a must, especially in light of the constant problems we have with the Serbo-Croatian language article.  See below in From Basic Principles to Specifics for more.  --Tox 13:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Human languages

message: I included some context for just what language 'is' and moved around the linguistics section. If anyone has any comments on the change I'd be glad to hear them.
--Kharhaz 06:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Language 

message: I have added some information to the Animal Language section.  It may be a little contoversial, however, I think the previous entry did not acuratly reflect the current scientiffic consensus.
--Selket 21:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Language 

message: The article on Acholi language is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you can contribute or want it to be improved, you can vote for this article there.--Fenice 16:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: This continues my comments under "Introduction" above.  As nobody had said anything about those comments after my last extensive addition to them, yesterday I changed the language article accordingly.  Then, for a third time, User:Mel Etitis reverted my changes; he has offered no reason here.  
It is not clear whether Mr Etitis had noticed that I had added a new section on definitions of language.  There I assembled, with documentation, the definitions that I had been able to find.  I wish people with broader knowledge would add what they know (also with documentation).  I might be able to improve it myself, but I would first want to know that not everything I did would be summarily deleted.  If there is an objection to the new section as such, I can't imagine what it is, but I am open to persuasion.
Meanwhile, I am restoring the new section and am placing there the introduction that I had preferred for the article itself.  The introduction that Mr Etitis prefers is retained, with a tag of dubiousness, discussed in "Disputed" below. David Pierce 07:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: I do not think the introductory sentence about language says what language is.  I think it expresses a point of view about language, but not the only one.  I have expressed some of my concerns in the section "Introduction" above.  I have repeatedly requested some authority for that introductory sentence, but no citation has come.  I have cited other authorities whose definition of language is quite different.
It seems to me that an article like the present one should first establish that we are all talking about the same thing; then the article can go on to give theoretical accounts of the subject.  I think most people know that they use language, and they recognize that other people use language; but they don't know grammar and don't think of language as essentially grammatical or as analysable into symbols.  They may be wrong; but I think the language article should begin with a description of language that everybody can make sense of.
In any case, let authorities be cited. David Pierce 07:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I open an article about Language and immediately I'm buffeted by a section on the Tol'kapiyar and Tamil grammar! That's ridiculous and is no way to open such an article.
RCSB 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Should Begin Differently!