From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Step-by-step Explanation of Tree Derivation[edit]

Hi everyone. I tried to expand on the explanation of the context-free tree derivation. But, this is my first significant edit, so please let me know what I did wrong. Thanks! Le neant (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Theoretical / Descriptive[edit]

What a terrible division in the top right, with links to inappropriate articles that bear no relation to the choice of subfields. So - phonetics and sociolinguistics are DESCRIPTIVE and not theoretical?! Tell that to people working in those fields. This is a humanities bias here, where "theoretical" maps more to philosophical and notation-based analysis of linguistic structures, and the so-called "descriptive" fields are, in fact, founded on real theoretical concepts drawing on linguistics and factors outside narrow linguistic ones - in order to create new and genuinely explanatory models. Phonetic theory, and Sociolinguistic theory both have more theory in them (in the philosophy of science sense) than straightforward theoretical syntax, and someone should be ashamed that they have parcelled the subfields of linguistics up in this way. There is no shame in being a humanities researcher - but if you want to call linguistics "the science of language", at least choose the subfields best able to support that label, because they are properly scientifically theoretical! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Linguistics, the study of imbedded utterable and none utterable sounds.[edit]

Language, is none complete, in any language.

There are a fast number of linguistical sounds, MANY OF them, NOT utterable by the vocal chords of men, woman, NOR child. These sounds are a part of the underlying linquistical set of any neuronal system that has come into contact with these sounds, but are NOT linguistically described. That defacto makes the current linquistical set none complete, and that none completion hinders progress in other areas of endeavor, including psychology, neurology, medicine, veterinary sciences, even physics, mathematics, quantum mecanics, or for that matter engineering, robotics, or anthrolpology and treaty trade relationships between distinct regions, and exo studies.

It is imperative for these sounds to have a minimally quantifiable definition, which currently is not imbedded in the defined sounds within linguistics. An oversight of such size that even a 'black hole', could move through it and not leave much of any dent.

Linguistics itself must be reviewed, the definitions adjusted and other forms of acoustic boxed sounds added for completion. (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can point to reliable sources that support those statements, we can discuss whether and how to incorporate them in the article. Wikipedia does not allow original research. - Donald Albury 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Aristocratic linguistics[edit]

Have there been any studies into the linguistics and cognitive linguistics of royals, and how they have innate vocabularies which are built upon ideas of power grabbing, sedition, and wealth acquisition? -ApexUnderground (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite history section?[edit]

The history section is now focussed on presenting competing grammar frameworks which are already presented in the Approaches section. The focus of the history section should be on historical events and innovations, not so heavily on the frameworks. I think there needs to be an overhaul this year. Weidorje (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Too short[edit]

A lot of material has been removed in attempting to compress the lead-in/introduction. Is this correct? Can we add some back and incorporate some of the content back into it? MrsCaptcha (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, a long article (more than 30,000 characters) should usually have a lead section of three or four paragraphs. The current lead has an appropriate length by that guideline. - Donald Albury 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The lead should also provide an overview of the whole article. Seeing as there are whole sections that are not summarized in the lead (such as the major subdisciplines and others) it could still be expanded.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The earlier lead-in had so much of material that had been painstakingly added, and all of that has been thoughtlessly deleted in a lazy attempt to reduce the length. This is not right. It might be more fruitful to revert to that lead for now and then carefully summarize it and reduce the length in a more systematic way. But there are also a lot of other articles on Wikipedia with a long length. For a subject with a scope as broad as such a discipline, it needs a longer introduction. There's nothing wrong with that. MrsCaptcha (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)