Talk:History of the English language: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell Potter (→A Mess) |
imported>Pat Palmer (added article checklist) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{checklist | |||
| abc = English language, History of the | |||
| cat1 = | |||
| cat2 = | |||
| cat3 = | |||
| cat_check = | |||
| status = 4 | |||
| underlinked = y | |||
| cleanup = | |||
| by = [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 16:41, 5 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
==A Mess== | ==A Mess== | ||
This entry needs considerable work. The material on Proto-English is dubious (though the list of early loanwords should be kept, I think), and it's distracting that the article at first quotes medieval sources on the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, and then tells its readers that this history has been deemed spurious! What's needed early on here is a better genealogy of English, identifying its lineage all the way from the Centum/Satem split on down though the Old Germanic languages. | This entry needs considerable work. The material on Proto-English is dubious (though the list of early loanwords should be kept, I think), and it's distracting that the article at first quotes medieval sources on the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, and then tells its readers that this history has been deemed spurious! What's needed early on here is a better genealogy of English, identifying its lineage all the way from the Centum/Satem split on down though the Old Germanic languages. | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 5 April 2007
| Workgroup category or categories | No categories listed [Please add or review categories] |
| Article status | External article: from another source, with little change |
| Underlinked article? | Yes |
| Basic cleanup done? | No |
| Checklist last edited by | Pat Palmer 16:41, 5 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
A Mess
This entry needs considerable work. The material on Proto-English is dubious (though the list of early loanwords should be kept, I think), and it's distracting that the article at first quotes medieval sources on the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, and then tells its readers that this history has been deemed spurious! What's needed early on here is a better genealogy of English, identifying its lineage all the way from the Centum/Satem split on down though the Old Germanic languages.
The later parts of the entry are slightly better, but could use more detail on specific grammatical and phonological changes (where's the Great Vowel Shift?).
I'll be working away with hammer and tongs at this, as time allows.
Russell Potter 09:42, 24 November 2006 (CST)