CZ Talk:Core Articles/Social Sciences
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Which to boot out? (Linguistics)
Struck through = done John Stephenson
As you can see, as of 27th October there are 5 too many in the linguistics lists. Which should be rejected? I think that individual languages and language families are less important, unless for some reason they are notable. I propose removing:
Austro-Asiatic languages (1)- Austronesian languages (1)
- Niger-Congo languages (1)
- Nilo-Saharan languages (1)
Trans-New Guinea languages (1)
What do you think? Individual languages that I added I did so because they are widely spoken (e.g. Bengali and Javanese). John Stephenson 08:16, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, I added the language families using size as a criterion (i.e., number of languages in family), but I agree that a lot of them should go. Good call. I'm really glad that we've got a full list now! Joshua M. Jensen 09:37, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- By the way, I just changed Linguistics to Stage 3. There's no question in my mind that it meets the definition of "most or all". Joshua M. Jensen 09:39, 27 October 2007 (CDT)
- I have removed the above links. Unless others wish to get involved - I'll put a last call out - it would be okay for Chris Day to consider locking the page.
- I'm sure we've missed things out, though, or could argue forever about the 99... John Stephenson 00:04, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- John, i don't think we can ever get to a perfect list. It's a pretty subjective task. We can always create another list when we have finished our first 99 :) As far as locking the page, I can't do that other wise the other subjects canot edit, but we can always undo future changes. Chris Day (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- Whoops - sorry, I know you don't lock the pages. I should have added 'in' to conform with stages of development - i.e. you 'lock in' the list. John Stephenson 02:25, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
- John, i don't think we can ever get to a perfect list. It's a pretty subjective task. We can always create another list when we have finished our first 99 :) As far as locking the page, I can't do that other wise the other subjects canot edit, but we can always undo future changes. Chris Day (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
- I'm sure we've missed things out, though, or could argue forever about the 99... John Stephenson 00:04, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
Additions & Changes (linguistics)
Before we close the door to changes on the list, can we gather a few more ideas here? I've given it a start. Joshua M. Jensen 12:47, 29 October 2007 (CDT)
Struck through = done John Stephenson 02:52, 31 October 2007 (CDT)
POSSIBLE ADDITIONS
- Autosegmental phonology (Joshua, John Stephenson - suggest '1')
- Linguistic Society of America (Joshua)
- Metrical phonology (John Stephenson) (1)
- Mutual intelligibility (John Stephenson) (1)
- Kenneth L. Hale (linguist known quite well outside the field) (John Stephenson) (1)
- Diglossia (2) - much-discussed in sociolinguistics; really need this (John Stephenson) (2)
- We forgot some grammar points: tense (linguistics), mood (linguistics), aspect (linguistics) (John Stephenson) (1, 1, 1)
POSSIBLE DELETIONS
- Sanskrit (seems more associated with history, literature, even though traditional grammarians did work with it) John Stephenson
- Cryptanalysis (seems to be more to do with codebreaking) John Stephenson
- (please add)
POSSIBLE POINTS CHANGES
1 point for Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, 2 points for Linguistic relativity
- More phonology I can go with. :-) LSA, though... I know it's a big association, but it might imply we should also add articles on e.g. the Linguistics Association of Great Britain. I'd prefer to go with subjects. Certainly S-W and relativity will be changed, as editor Richard Senghas has indicated. There are a lot of pragmatics ones which seem to cover quite technical subjects. Maybe lose one or two? John Stephenson 02:52, 31 October 2007 (CDT)