Talk:Romance linguistics

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Romance languages was copied or moved into Romance languages linguistics with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article comes from a split of Romance languages. I wasn’t sure how to call it so I just gave it the current title, but maybe we can find a better one. Same goes for the lead section, and the article might also need some restructuring, adding references etc. --SynConlanger (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence "This article is about ..." is really not in Wikipedia style. The lead section should be a summary of the article content, without mentioning the words "this article". It should start with "The linguistics of Romance languages is the branch of linguistics that studies ...", and then keep going summarizing the article in 2-3 short paragraphs. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SynConlanger: unfortunately you have not followed the WP:PROSPLIT, so this was a very bold move of yours. I hope nobody is strongly against this. I would start a move proposal to a different title. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bold splits are not against the policy and the section had a split notice. I’m happy for the article to be moved in any way is seen fit and for the lead section to be changed (I know the lead section does not follow wiki policies, it was just a temporary solution). —SynConlanger (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what you mean by the section having a split notice:

It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Romance linguistics. (Discuss) (June 2018)

that was answered cogently and the move to an article Romance linguistics died on the vine, presumably for the reason given. Maybe I just don't know where to look, but I don't see a split notice other than that one, which seems to offer no explanation of why the split would be desirable. What I see is that 14 February a move based on length is proposed, 15 February the move was executed without discussion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the notice in that section was put there on June 2018. There is also a notice at the top of the article dated May 2019. If the community thinks the split was inappropriate, let's undo it. Over and out. --SynConlanger (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I cut-and-pasted above, the suggestion of moving (not really a notice that it's going to happen, as it's worded) was from June 2018, and was answered June 2018. There was no more discussion, as Romance Linguistics (linguistique romane, linguistica romanza, Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, etc. etc.) is a field of study, not a collection of data, thus not the apt label. The note that I see at the top from May 2019 is an observation of length, no more. The split was, IMO, not necessarily inappropriate in se, but some discussion and planning would seem to have been in order. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving this page to "Linguistics of Romance languages". It seems to me like a more natural title in English. Also the present title should probably be "Romance languages' linguistics", but I am not sure. I think my proposed title would be clearer. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romance Linguistics is a field of study -- like Economics or Anthropology -- not a label indicating description of linguistic features of Romance languages. I don't know if the format meets Wikipedia norms, but an accurate title would be something like Romance Languages: Linguistic features. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal (with the : in the middle of the title) is not something that I think it's correct for a Wikipedia title. I would keep the current title and actually use this page to talk both about the field, and to give more linguistic details. Or, I would change it to "Linguistics of Romance languages" or "Linguistic features of Romance languages" (a bit too long maybe). --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the colon very frequently in its own titles, but perhaps it's restricted to that. If "Romance Languages: Linguistic features" isn't acceptable, "Linguistic features of Romance languages" seems to be the accurate alternative. ("Romance linguistics" would be a very legitimate article, though -- a description of the development and present state of the field, staring presumably with Raynouard.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles like Articulatory phonetics and LGBT linguistics which dwell mostly on what those subfields study rather than the field itself, so I don't see much of a problem. If there is, then it should probably be remedied not by moving the article but by expanding on the field's history. Nardog (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repair never really achieved here, but the article in Italian, while in some ways a mess of its own and very much a work in (excruciatingly slow) progress, offers some ideas for improving this article. At least in Linguistica romanza a bit more effort is made for the article to actually be about Romance Linguistics -- and a little more distinguishable from Lingue romanze. [1] Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Romanian was influenced by Slavic phonology, most notably in the palatalization of consonants in the plural form (for example pomi [pomʲ] and lupi [lupʲ])." But the transcriptions [pomʲ] and [lupʲ] indicate no palatalization of consonants. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They do. The "ʲ" you see after the consonants indicates palatalization.

Ilinca2000 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]