Talk:Linguistic description

message: Synchronic linguistics redirects here, but the term is never mentioned in the article. Is it just a synomym (in which case it should be mentioned in the lead) or is there a difference in meaning (in which case we should define it). -- Jmabel 23:03, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
:Descriptive linguistics has its own article, but prescriptive linguistics gets redirected to prescription and description. Was ist los!!!!!!!!!!!!!1112edv,, -Branddobbe 09:03, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:It's because descriptive linguistics is not merely the antonym of prescriptive linguistics, but rather refers to a much broader aspect of linguistics of which "descriptive linguistics in English" is only a tiny part, if even related. - Mustafaa
Synchronic linguistics no longer redirects here.  Users following a link to "synchronic" need an explanation of what synchronic means in a linguistic context. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Synchronic linguistics

message: Orthography is not an essential part of descriptive linguistics; in fact, it's not even part of descriptive linguistics also except as a time-saving tool so that the descriptor need not exclusively use IPA.  It should not be included as one of the criteria for a "good" (good?  should this be "useful"?  "Rigorous"? something less subjective?) linguistic description-- there are plenty of languages lacking orthography which can be described in a "good" fashion.
Barring any sort of objection or explanation, I'm going to go ahead and remove the orthography reference. variable 19:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthography

message: Should this be merged into prescription and description? - SimonP 19:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:No, why do you say that? This shouldn't be merged with linguistic descriptivism either, though I can see merging the latter with prescription and description. Descriptive linguistics is not an antonym to "prescriptive linguistics", they are orthogonal at best. Descriptive linguistics is about describing languages (as they actually are), just as a subset of biology is about describing animals, what they look like, where they live, what they eat etc... Prescriptivism (in English) is something that happened because some pedants read too much latin in the 19th century and wanted to improve English. In other languages it is also a symptom of nationalism and the then just starting attempts at educating the unwashed masses. Quite different beasts! Kaleissin 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Am I the only one who finds this section pointless and not reflective of any actual  controversy among linguists? Bjart 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition? Controversy? 

message: Why does "Descriptive grammar" redirect here? Linguistics is naturally descriptive; grammar used to be prescriptive, that was the point. Ampwright (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptive grammar

message: Aren't those links a bit... arbitrary? LOL. Kayau (talk · contribs)  15:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The see also section 

message: I'm inclined to remove them; I don't think they are serving any purpose. Ullpianissimo (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there random Cyrillic letters scattered in this article?  

message: Should this page discuss about language documentation and language description (in Himmelmann's sense: Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Documentary and descriptive linguistics (full version). In Osamu Sakiyama & Fubito Endo (eds.), Lectures on endangered languages: 5, 37–83. Kyoto: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim.)? --SynConlanger (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language documentation and description 

message: I take issue specifically with the line "All academic research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other scientific disciplines, it seeks to describe reality, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be."  I'm not sure that "all" academic research in linguistics can be described as descriptive.  I'm thinking specifically of some of the more obscure branches of syntax, which are more theoretical in nature.  In fact, I'm not sure that linguists such as Chomsky would even concede that language (as it exists in the brain) can be described.  I'll agree that most academic research in linguistics is probably descriptive, but not all. Ultrerurale (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible inaccuracies