Talk:Western Desert language

message: I've seen 'Western Desert Language' written in inverted commas a few times, and it seems to be an alternative name for a bulk of Wati languages, rather than one of the languages. Can someone sort this article out?
: Sorry, I thought it was fairly clear. The WDL is a single language, but it is composed of a number of dialects, some of which are well-known and often referred to themselves as languages. Do you think this point needs more explanation? Dougg 00:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for a bit of prodding! I've expanded the article considerably, though there's a lot more that needs to be done. I'd be glad to hear how it reads. Dougg 01:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dougg. I'm sorry that I forgot to sign my question above. It is unlikely that SIL will give an ISO 639-3 code to the Western Desert Language as it has already given individual codes to its dialects (SIL is often characterized as a splitter). Thus, there is a huge gulf between ISO 639-2=aus and the dialect codes. One would have to resort to an extended coding like aus-WDL to specify Western Desert Language without specifying which dialect is intended. As I have done for other languages, I've added the individual dialect codes into the infobox, as it seems odd to leave that field empty, waiting for something that is not going to happen. I've also reworded the headings according to WP:MOS. Thanks for your work on Australian languages, we could do with more editors who are interested in them. --Gareth Hughes 13:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all that! Dougg 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Is the palatal stop [c] actually transcribed as tj?  I would think it would follow the pattern of the other palatal consonants and be written ty.  –Benjamin  (talk)  22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the practical orthographies in use the palatal stop is spelled either j or tj. I'm pretty sure that there are no varieties of the WDL which currently use ty, although I think this spelling was used by some early researchers Yes, it is inconsistent, but that's not a rare thing in orthographies, eh! Dougg 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palatal stop 

message: These well-known dialects are often referred to as 'languages' however, technically-speaking, they are dialects.
I would like to ask what this "technical" difference is, especially since this statement appears to be contradicted in the dialect article:
There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference.
— Hippietrail 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Techincally (by that I mean within the discipline of linguistics) dialects of a language are mutually intelligible varieties which differ in systematic ways from each other. In this approach two speech varieties are described as different languages if they are not mutually intelligible, and as dialects of the same language if they are. Of course 'mutual intelligibility' can be pretty fuzzy and hard to assess (even for native speakers), and has numerous political ramifications. How about I add something to that line you quote from Western Desert Language clarifying this? I think the dialect article needs a bit of work too, it doesn't seem to me to make the linguistic definition clear enough. Dougg 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've made some amendments to the article, hope they're satisfactory. Dougg 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I'm not sure the technical definition is quite clear enough though. For instance I believe I have read that languages at the extremes of a dialect continuum may not be mutually comprehensible. I have also read that there exist dialect continua which contain two accepted languages, I believe the example I read was Dutch and German have a dialect continuum between the two countries where speakers of one dialect can always understand their neighbours but German and Dutch speakers certainly can't understand one another. — Hippietrail 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's certainly true that there are problematic cases. As you say (and as discussed at Dialect continuum) in some dialect chains the extremes are not mutually intelligible, and so count (in linguistics' usage) as distinct languages, although every pair of neighbours are mutually intelligible. This makes it difficult (maybe impossible) to draw a line where one language ends and another begins. But in the case of the Western Desert Language all varieties appear to be largely mutually intelligible, so the problem does not arise (though it possibly would have if given another few centuries of time for change to take place--the main change taking place now is loss). Dougg 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the dialect continuum should be divided along more or less logical borders, preferably major isoglosses or isogloss barriers. A well-known example indeed is the continental West Germanic continuum, which you refer to above: you can easily travel from the island of Texel in the Netherlands to the town of Eisenstadt in Austria and the dialects remain mutually intelligible from place to place. But northern Hollandic isn't really the same language as south western Austro-Bavarian. There are actually, linguistically spoken, many more languages than just Dutch and German (this is of course an oratio pro domo since the Limburgic Wikipedia is my baby). It seems unlikely to me that the differences in the WDL are that large (why else would linguists call it one language), even though the area where it is spoken is presumably bigger. However, perhaps it would be nice to see how broad the differences are. Caesarion 09:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects vs. languags 

message: I've removed, "Technically-speaking however, they are dialects as they show a very high degree of mutual intelligibility, especially between neighbouring varieties." — I think it makes more sense without this sentence. It might be interesting to have some information on any standardised varieties of this language/these languages which exist. - Francis Tyers · 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Line removed

message: We be needin some syntax up in this bitch.
:Feel free to contribute, if you are able!  I'd love to learn more about the syntax of "Wangka Yuti".  yoyo (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax

message: In the infobox, it states that 'Martu Wangka' is the standard form of the Western Desert language.
However, this redirects to Maduwongga which is an article about a specific people.
Is this intentional and I have misunderstood something, or is this a mistake?
FropFrop (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's incorrect. I've fixed the link so it now points to Martu Wangka dialect, although I'm not sure it's really appropriate to have any Western Desert variety listed as a 'standard'.  'Maduwongga' is a term recorded by Norman Tindale and is generally thought to have been an error. Dougg (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect 'standard form' in infobox?