Talk:Mixed language

message: Please provide a published source backing up the claim that Galatian is a mixed language. --Angr/ 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely because there's so little research done on genuine mixed languages (which are extremely rare) and so much misuse of the term "mixed language" to mean "any form of a language that has been influenced in any way by another language". If you want to improve the article, however, feel free! --Angr/ 04:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: > However, the chief European influence on Hebrew is in pronunciation, as Hebrew grammar remains entirely Semitic.
Non-sense. The syntax of Modern Hebrew is "Standard Average European". See for example http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/0b248d627d7379fd Why do ignorant laypeople pontificate on technical linguistic matters in Wikipedia? Well, I for one don't trust Wikipedia one iota on linguistic matters. 91.152.249.195 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now think very hard about why Wikipedia does't take blogs and forum posts as solid evidence; you might then want to go an re-think the sources you trust and do a bit more reading on modern Hebrew before you come up with such sweeping statements. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter T. Daniels isn't just some dude on the Internet, though; he is a respected linguist. But if the syntax of Hebrew has been Standard Average European all the way back to Mishnaic Hebrew, then whatever "Standard Average European" syntax means, it must include Semitic syntax. On the other hand, the "grammar" referred to in the sentence quoted above probably refers more to morphology than to syntax. +Angr 21:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably he meant this thing Standard Average European. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (looking up Mishnah) – By that time, wouldn't most Jews be speaking Greek? —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Hebrew 

message: Under "See also", a link to Chiac has been added. From the examples given in the French Wikipedia, this seems to be a register of French with a lot of English loanwords, loan meanings and loan constructions, as well as loaned phrases, but it's still clearly recognisable as derived from French, not even what I'd call regularised code-switching. The use of English lexical material, while unusually extensive, is hardly so extreme as to warrant doubt as to the genetic classification of the language. The verbal morphology is clearly French and there is plenty of French lexical material. I fail to see where what happens in Chiac constitutes a mixed language. I'll remove the link and change the classification of Chiac in its infobox to reflect its unambiguous French nature. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiac, a mixed language? Really? 

message: GvargasLing150 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Just remember to cite published, peer-reviewed sources. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall 2013 Linguistics 150 Wikipedia Project Comments/Feedback 

message: Languages are constantly being called "mixed" because of foreign influence, and some of that ends up here.  We really need sources, at least in the main articles.  So, we describe Bonin English as a creole, Yeniche as jargon (though in an exceptionally bad article), Surzhyk looks macaronic, and Jopara just looks like a case of heaving borrowing like in Chicano Spanish.  (After all, Japanese conjugates some English verbs like 'double' following Japanese patterns, but no-one considers Japanese to be a mixed language.)  I tagged these for refs, and plan on removing them soon if we don't find any.  And I removed Surzhyk as the very first example in the article, considering we haven't even shown it to belong in the article.  — kwami (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We're down to Erromintxela.  If it counts as mixed, wouldn't all or at least many Para-Romani languages count as well?  We have classified them all as mixed in their info boxes, so settling this question will affect several articles.  — kwami (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources I could find on Erromintxela are in the article already. I think the problem is that, having just re-read this article, the definition of a mixed language seems extremely vague. I get the bit that about creoles/pidgins but the last paragraph is really confusing, the bit makes specific reference to Anglo-Romani. I know what a register is and Anglo-Romani has registers itself but I cannot see how anyone could classify AR as a register of English. If AR is a register of English, the Erromintxela is a register of Basque but I don't think that works. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: The other languages' articles on Petuh have some refs that could be used; they're not in English, though. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable languages 

message: There is near verbatim duplication of the final two paragraphs of the Definitions section as the final two paragraphs of the following Differentiation section. 
I don't know which section they better belong in. Thryduulf (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of content 

message: I don't get this sentence at all: "Because missionaries and Bretons stigmatized Michif French..." Missionaries I understand, but how and by what authority did the inhabitants of Bretagne, far across the sea on a distant continent, persecute Manitoban peoples? Laodah (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having received no explanation for this mystery, I've removed the reference to Bretons in this section. Laodah 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion in the Michif section 

message: While it is true that there continues to be some debate about whether "Mixed language" is a useful category, I think this article overstates the argument against it and gives undue weight to the anti-mixed languages viewpoint which I think is the minority view in linguistics, particularly in contact linguistics. I also think it generally gets the issue rather backwards because it focuses on the question of question of the existence of a category of mixed languages, instead of on the process of language mixing or entwinement that produces those languages. The lead gives undue weight to Max Müller, Whitney and Schmidt, whose views are almost entirely irrelevant for the modern debate. IN short I don't think the article is currently as neutral and informative as it ought to be, for which reason I have placed the "NPOV" tag at the top.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my impression is that the real debate is over what should be considered mixed, as a useful definition, and how we could tell for any particular case. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The only article I could find that outright disputes that there are any mixed languages, and that the category has usefulness is Versteegh's which is from a 2017 monogrpah about Maltese (Maltese is not considered a mixed language today) and which of course has not been cited by anyone yet (because it is too new). I think better references would be Viveka Vellupillai's 2015 book, and the many works by Yaron Matras. The debate as you say, is really about the degree to which the concept is meaningful, and here there are obvious reasons that traditional historical linguistsfocusing on genetic classification may find it less useful than more sociolinguistically minded historical linguists.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hello, 
I am teaching a WikiEdu course (ANTH474)which involves editing pages related to contact languages. The students and I will be editing this page together in class on Sept. 25th, 2018 in order to practice evaluating and editing other articles. If you have concerns or feedback on our edits, please reply here. Thanks. CESchreyer (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANTH474 - Pidgins, Creoles and Created Language student editing  

message: See . --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reo Rapa 

message: Coming to this article by chance ... I was fascinated by the examples and by the debates regarding a definition.
* I have clarified the description of Michif by stating that it is V-N, and removed the clarification needed tag. I trust that this meets with approval jw (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  N-V V-N