Talk:Word - Knowledge

1550:

reference to the statement:"In linguistics a word is the smallest element that may be uttered in isolation with semantic or pragmatic content (with literal or practical meaning)." I have so many problems with this. In no particular order: it conflates the "as utterance" meaning with the "linguistic meaning", the distinction it makes is not useful in that its "meaning" in isolation may not be its meaning in context, "element" is not defined and its use here is tautological (if words aren't identified, 'elements' won't be, either). I see absolutely NO reason to include both the difficult phrase "with semantic or pragmatic content" and the more intuitive phrase "with literal or practical meaning". I also fail to understand what "practical meaning" (or "pragmatic content") MEANS. I doubt if you can produce an authoratative DEFINITION of either of those terms. Moving on... The first examples are lousy. They are all single syllable English words!! Why not include "a"? (perhaps because as an article it fails to have a meaning uttered in isolation? (What does "a" mean?)) Why not include "abnormalities"? why not include "aminoazomethyphenylalanine"? And how is that definition useful to determine whether or not "km" is a word or an abbreviation (is an abbreviation a word?, Is "1" a word? Is the utterance "letmebe" a word? one or three?) And (perhaps I'm just ignornat here) doesn't the use of "morpheme" to describe single syllable words confuse rather than inform? Why focus on the difference between morphemes and words when there are several equally valid ways to categorize the term "word"? And how can anyone justify the use of the weasle phrases "not necessarily", "may not be able", and "will typically" (the word "may" is used 4 times in the lede, does it mean "might" or "shall"?) The lede's last paragraph is the clearest and most useful, imho. (Although it could use improvement, too.) By jumping immediately into the "linguistic" use, the editors SHOULD understand that they have gone to an ABSTRACTION, not a "pragmatic" definition (as it true with most if not all technical definitions). Oh, not only are abbreviations ignored here but so too are nonsense words WITHOUT semantic content, is "mlaxup", which I just invented, a word? Seems to me the fundamental meaning of "word" is either an element of an utterance (in some languages) OR a linguistic element. I doubt if either can be claimed to be a "fundamental" (or "indivisible") element in any absolute sense (in most languages both are composed of smaller elements in audible and visual presentation.) (which brings up sign language and braille...). So, could someone who knows what they're talking about rewrite the lede to make it sensible to a general reader and so that it corresponds to the actual definition(s) of "word"? Thanks. (Also, do a better job in the examples of words, clauses, phrases and sentences. A phrase shouldn't also be a clause, a clause shouldn't also be a sentence; the goal here is to distinguish them! )

1142:

the Indo-European (IE Language family. Old Norse is the North Germanic language that was spoken by inhabitants of Scandinavia and inhabitants of their overseas settlements during the Viking Age Gothic is an extinct Germanic language that was spoken by the Goths. Proto-Germanic, or Common Germanic, is the hypothetical common ancestor ( Proto-language) of all the Germanic languages such as modern English Cognates outside Germanic include Baltic (Old Prussian wīrds "word", and with different ablaut Lithuanian var̃das "name", Latvian vàrds "word, name") and Latin verbum. The Baltic languages are a group of related languages belonging to the Indo-European language family and spoken mainly in areas extending east and southeast of the Baltic Prussian is an extinct Baltic language once spoken by the inhabitants of the area that later became East Prussia (now north-eastern Poland Lithuanian (lietuvių kalba) is the official state language of Lithuania and is recognised as one of the official languages of the European Union. Latvian language (latviešu valoda is the official state language of Latvia. The PIE stem *werdh- is also found in Greek ερθει (φθεγγεται "speaks, utters" Hes. ). Hesychius of Alexandria (῾Ησύχιος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς a Grammarian who flourished probably in the 5th century CE compiled the richest lexicon The PIE root is *ŭer-, ŭrē- "say, speak" (also found in Greek ειρω, ρητωρ). Serbo-Croatian govor means speech. Rhetoric has had many definitions no simple definition can do it justice The original meaning of word is "utterance, speech, verbal expression". An utterance is a complete unit of speech in Spoken language. Speech refers to the processes associated with the production and perception of Sounds used in Spoken language. Until Early Modern English, it could more specifically refer to a name or title. Early Modern English is the stage of the English language used from about the end of the Middle English period (the latter half of the 15th century to 1650

1570:

mere poorly written explanation. Many things in the sciences resist dirt-simple mutually exclusive definitions—even exclusive definitions that we can manage to distill to one line are more often than not subtly clever for having pulled it off. For example, "not necessarily" and "may not be able" are simply correct: some morphemes can also be words (for example, the indefinite articles "a", "an"), but many are not (for example, -y, -ness). This is already explained with examples right there where it's stated. Regarding the last point, all clauses are also phrases, many clauses are also sentences, and many sentences are also clauses. Sometimes

1681:

just like Korean has suffixes that have no meaning on their own. Now, there are some features that can distinguish a few (though not not close to all) breaks in Japanese words (which I believe are primarily due to /n/ at the end of a word becoming ), but assuming one picks an agglutinative language that lacks such things, or at least have so few of them such methods aren't usable (of which I am sure there are plenty), what differentiates it from analytic Chinese (which I have seen written in what appears to be agglutinative fashion akin to Korean and Japanese, such as

2039: 1927: 200: 1689:

rather either by morpheme or not at all with neither being consistent, such as in "disable" /dis.eɪ.bɫ̩/ and "whatcha" /ʍʌ.t͡ʃə/), so that can't be used unless you want to make almost every morpheme a separate word. And people can say "un" on its own in correcting someone (albeit rarely), just like they can say "the" on its own to correct someone (which is not quite as rare, but still far from common, as one usually will add the word that follows).

264: 344: 1995: 1884: 1270:, agree with Angr. Any content that is worth preserving can be brought over here, but there's no need for a full-on merge. (Anyone is free to userfy a copy of the deleted article so they can work on the merging.) It looks to me like that article is written more like a textbook chapter or essay than an encyclopedia article, so I doubt a whole lot of it is worth preserving here. 254: 233: 191: 592:(lexeme), as pointed out in the article. 'Word' and 'lexical item' are often used interchangeably. For some, it's important to stress the distinction between the two; if 'word' is indeed the end node of the syntactic tree and 'lexeme' is the item that is stored in memory, the two don't have to be identical. 1793:

Not really. A word is a sequence of sounds, not an idea. Not all words even represent ideas. I'm also a little confused by your use of the terms "compound sound", "language science", and "pure language", and the focus on alphabets and ideograms is a little odd, considering that there are other common

1660:

The word "desinence" is defined in the Wictionary as a technical term from linguistics. The word "suffix" is the standard word used in United States of America in teaching school children. The Knowledge page "Desinence" is in fact a redirect page to the Knowledge article "Suffix". Suffix is 150 times

1569:

is good and I am sure that the article can benefit from it to some degree, but some of the "everyone else must be an idiot" flavor is misplaced. There are some flawed assumptions here about how simple and mutually exclusive everything must/should be, an assumption of an intrinsic black/white behind a

1387:

I was searching for the origin of the quotation "the meaning of a word is its use in the language.". I was a bit disapointed, 'cause I just found a link to secondary sources. Which is of cause helpful to come deeper into the topic, but which won't give me the possibility to study the original context

1141:

English word is directly from Old English word, and has cognates in all branches of Germanic (Old High German wort, Old Norse orð, Gothic waurd), deriving from Proto-Germanic *wurđa, continuing a virtual PIE *wr̥dhom. The Germanic languages are a group of related languages that constitute a branch of

759:

The definition of word described in the article pertains to the concept of a word only as written (in that it talks about separating words by spaces, for example). It completely disregards the fact that language is verbal in nature. That is to say, it seems to suggest that words can't exist without a

1680:

The section on word boundaries doesn't really explain why in Chinese, the words are considered to be isolated instances, while in say, Japanese, the words are considered to be a hodgepodge of morphemes combined into one unit. Chinese does have grammatical particles that have no meaning on their own,

1053:

The beginning of the article is very odd; it waxes philosophical and says some basically untrue things: "Words are fundamental units of inherent quality or basic constitution of things." The word "the" doesn't have much inherent quality; or if it does, then only about as much as prefixes like "con-"

421:

It depends of course on one's definition of 'infix', which in your case is a very strict one. However, 'affixation' (just like its children suffixation, prefixation and infixation) is commonly used in a very general way, just to express something being put before, after or inside something else. For

1549:

Another REALLY bad Knowledge article, imho. If it is about the linguistic term, instead of starting off the lede with "In linguistics ..." why not start with "Applied to language ..." (or eqivalent)? SHOULD the general reader be expected to know what "linguistics" is? I also demand an authoratative

925:

Is this really a necessary sentence? It's so wishy washy: "All in all ..." also it's not so much "a word" that allows us to "communicate with others AND interact with the rest of the world" (aren't communicating and interacting the same thing in this context as well?), but language itself, of which

562:

Yes, but with some reservations; and there is at least another one. First, the first one is heavily theory dependent. Most cognitive linguists would shrug their shoulders and ask 'what is "the syntactic tree"'? To some theorists, the syntactic tree is largely a theoretical construct comparable to a

1964:

The article should mention the existence of linguistic expression that are seemingly made up of multiple words, yet exhibit word-like behavior (blind spot, catch fire, work in progress, etc). I'm not good writing up a new section, so I'm hoping that others can discuss/expand on this concept in the

1814:

Name a word that does not have an idea connected to it. It would be a sound and not a word. It could be written in transcription form, but its either a word or a transcription of a sound. And sounds that don't have a specific assigned meaning will usually have some meaning in the way that they are

406:

Hi, I'm sorry that I reverted your edit — as it was an unmotivated deletion and the very first edit from an anonymous IP, it looked like a test to me, which is why I reverted the deletion and welcomed you on your Talk page. Now that you've explained your deletion, I've reverted myself to allow for

1688:

What about English, which has lost a lot of its inflections to become predominantly analytic? Why is "will have done" said to be three words, even though "will" and "have" both lack meaning on their own? Is it solely orthography in such a case? The sandhi in English isn't constrained by word (but

634:

There is more margin in the definition of lexeme. If the lexeme is to be a psychologically realistic entity, why would one want to confine it to grammatical words? What about idioms like 'hit the road' and 'kick the bucket'? Surely they are stored in memory, and I think those are good examples of

605:

As a somewhat syntax-impaired phonologist, I don't really understand the difference between 'word' as the end node of the tree and 'lexeme' as the item stored in memory. Don't you just take the word you have stored in memory and plug it into the syntactic tree? Can you give an example of a lexeme

572:

might be a good example, but he doesn't use the term 'morphological word' for this.) Furthermore, the terminal node of your garden variety syntactic tree may or may not correspond to what some call a morphological word (it depends on what kind of boundary you want to draw in the syntax/morphology

1064:

Anyway. Rant aside, I'm fixing the thing to my own taste. However, I admit that my point of view is rather overly scientific (throwing out poetic stuff because it's technically wrong?), and furthermore I actually question whether there is any good definition of word. And so someone might want to

999:

Does the definition of portmanteau really need to be in the first paragraph of this page? I see its relevance here, but I've been feeling like "partmanteau" is a buzzword here on wikipedia just used for the sake of using it, and many times inappropriately. I'd like to see it moved to the body

1712:

A word is an idea in the head with a sound label that comes out of the mouth. Other definitions may talk about the difference between a word and a term, or draw from language science and talk about its irreducible form, in pure language (not human speech) but is probably talking about lexemes.

783:

Word is a syntactically identifiable and semantically measurable (significant) sign, which is a unit of linguistic interaction. The word regardless of how it is expressed or perceived. Morphology of the word depends on the implement of its linguistic expression and comprehension (e.g.: speech

391:

I got rid of the part in the article where it gave "absobloominlutely" as an example of a word with an infix. An infix is a grammatical unit like a prefix or suffix except it comes in the middle of a word. There aren't really any of them in the English language. "fan-freakin'-tastic" equals

426:

it is common to speak of the 'affixation' of something reduplicated to the base morpheme — this can be a whole word in the case of full reduplication, or (in cases of partial reduplication) only part of a word. I guess one could use 'infixation' in the same, loose way (loose as opposed to the

698:

Yes, it does. And I now that I know the difference (I did before, actually, I just thought of it in different terms), I would definitely want my definition of "morphological word" to be X°, not lexeme, as I would not want to say that "kick the bucket" is a word, but I would want to say that

630:

in your garden variety syntactic tree. That's an importance difference between words and lexemes in this theory (incidentally, Jackendoff points out that Chomsky likely deviates from psychological reality here, in that there is no reason to think that the brain stores information

1634:

The page is in serious need of editing for readability. It also needs additional in-line citations. Importance is High to Mid, since the definition of a word is important in linguistics, but is dealt with implicitly or subsequent to other discussions in much published work.

567:

goes so far as to say that Chomskyan syntax is nothing more than a theoretical construct, and a idealized one at that). To others, the psychological basis is quite clear and in that case the notion of word has a more substantial basis in (psycholinguistic) reality (I think

1971:*Up they turned). The article should also mention that some multi-word expressions might pass some but not all of these tests, which opens up a scalar view of wordhood (some words being more "wordlike" than others). Source: The Lexicon by Elisabetta Ježek, p.25-28.-- 1661:

more common in use than desinence, according to the books.google.com/ngrams word count of words in over 1,000,000 books. The Knowledge style page instructs editors to avoid technical language in favor of standard English words. So I made this change.

356: 747:

The confusion in the definition of a word comes from the fact that we don't distinguish the means a language uses to denote CONCEPTS, and the units a language uses to create its sentences. If the language is written or spoken does not matter.

621:

It depends on your theory of the lexicon and your definition of lexemes. If you define the lexicon as the inventory of words in memory, there's no problem (but then you have a tautological definition at best). Chomsky, for one, insists (in

576:

The second sense you mention ('phonological word') is important in phonology and prosodic theory. Semantics doesn't play a role in this definition. The article touches this under 'phonetic boundaries' (it might be a good idea to mention

875:

Do literate Vietnamese find it difficult to distinguish a word, or is this a difficulty held by language learners acquiring Vietnamese literacy? If it is the latter, then I doubt Vietnamese should be called "especially confusing."

2232: 1060:

Then there is the claim that all human expression and communication is representing words. Words can try and explain what smiles or flags mean, but that certainly doesn't mean those symbols are just expressing words.

787:

Despite being hijacked and semantically circumcised by those linguists, who are trying to narrow their research to the speech language’ rules and tendencies, the term, word, need to be defined at its full semiotic

1692:

I get the feeling (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it's somewhat arbitrary, and in the absence of phonological evidence, linguists will use the orthography or their gut, and it will rarely change thereafter.

2222: 153: 1137:

Can someone put this in the article for WORD to elaborate on the PIE wrdhom for Word? I am not sure if copying is allowed but if not then can someone compose something original based on the info below?

1968:

Two properties that linguists agree words should have is cohesiveness and fixed internal order. There are there empirical tests to discover degrees of wordhood: the seperation test (credit card -: -->

2237: 2074: 1794:

kinds of writing systems, and true ideograms are rare in actual writing systems. For all of these reasons, I think the current lead is clearer and more accurate than what you've proposed here. —

626:) on the non-redundancy of the lexicon — i.e., he wants the lexicon to contain only non-predictable features. This does not necessarily hold for words, however: you won't break up 'runner' into 1520:"Hebrew hrmm ("breath", "spirit", also translated as "word" or "angel"), probably pronounced, memrah. The English words memory, membership, message, and meaning are derived from this word." 674:'buy for'. Rather than assuming that these X°'s are all separate lexemes, I would want my theory of the lexicon to account for the semantic regularity observed here: that there is an affix 1854: 1057:

This is followed by quotes which were obviously pasted from somewhere. I don't know how much of this text was just pasted from something else; googling doesn't find it, so maybe not...

427:

definition of infix you gave above). Thus, I'd take its use in this article as simply descriptive: some word is infixed into another word, i.e. put inside of it. Which in my view makes

1294:

To clarify: I am not suggesting a full-content merger, only a selective merger. I'm not a fan of full-content dumps anyway, and upon closer examination I find only one element at

872:"Especially confusing are languages such as Vietnamese, where spaces do not necessarily indicate breaks in words and boundaries must be determined by the context of the piece." 1015:

I agree it seems somewhat out of place. It could either be moved, or it could be placed into context by adding similar terms like "clipped form", "acronym", and "initialism". —

1574:

doesn't offer mutual exclusiveness. It's not a pedagogical flaw obscuring a simplistic reality—it's the underlying multivariate reality that makes good pedagogy challenging.

1853:

Nonsense. The it in "it's raining" is meaningful, you're perhaps just making the mistake of assigning meaning to objects only. So there is a case of you being in error. -

682:

that introduces an applicative sense to verbs carrying it. This affix is not a grammatical word; the verb as a whole (with the 'applicative extension', as it is called),

1120:

The last thing the article needs is an "in popular culture" section. We'll get a list of every episode of every TV show where anyone has ever uttered the word "word". +

823:

Would French really classify as a polysyntethic language, I find it hard to see how "je ne le sais pas." would classify as more polysynthetic than "Ah dunno."

147: 2247: 320: 310: 79: 1829:

One example is the word "it" in "It's raining", which is there purely to fulfill the requirements of English syntax and does not represent an idea (see

1054:

and "post-", which aren't words. Anyway the next sentence claims words represent mental pictures, which isn't true. What picture does "any" represent?

656:

stored in long-term memory: the independent stems and affixes. These elements are smaller than grammatical words, and cannot be produced in isolation."

2252: 2217: 1327: 652:

is vast, possibly too large to store in long-term memory; on the other hand it is possible to construct most grammatical words online from units that

368: 2227: 1948: 1934: 286: 2242: 1530: 1149: 85: 2190: 2170: 2155: 2136: 2093: 1911: 1777: 1714: 1501:

I suggest the line "Orthographic boundaries: See below." is superfluous when the article discusses the orthographic boundaries separately.

1001: 959: 595:

A lot more could be said but I think the article in its current state does a wonderful job of untangling the different senses of 'word'. —

1816: 1599: 1401: 980: 933: 803: 789: 767: 635:

lexemes (lexically stored items) that aren't X°'s. Now the other way round. Consider languages with a highly productive morphology like

2078: 2115: 1551: 883: 1090:`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' 898:

Confusing to Westerners, of course. It's natural for Vietnamese to delimit monosyllabic morphemes. I have modified the article. -

1844: 1805: 922:"All in all, a word is a very powerful concept that permits us to communicate with others and interact with the rest of the world." 277: 238: 1858: 726:

The definition stated that a word carries meaning and grammatical employment, what about phonological properties a word is also an

204: 1628:, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section. 2212: 1933:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

1108: 99: 30: 104: 20: 533:), which mostly corresponds to a morphological word, but can include two morphological words in cases of contraction (like 1378:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

74: 1477: 1339: 1272: 1216: 213: 44: 1457:

This text is absolutely missing intext citations. This text could be easily cited using various educational websites.

65: 1326:

A selective merge or a redirect without a merge would both be fine by me. Btw, this article was copied in as part of

2050: 1943: 168: 2110:££&3&3&3333#&33&4**45*¥&£444&44&4&4&4=4=4=4=4=4=4=4=4444444=4==4=444==4=4 1579: 1517:

How dare you (or you) to "create" a global encyclopedia and write such blood-curdling and fist-clenching bull*s:

907: 690: 599: 435: 411: 135: 2194: 2174: 2159: 2140: 2097: 1534: 1153: 848:

What about the (apparently) popular process of saying "Word!" after a sentence, as an exclamitory enhancer(?)?

1915: 1781: 1718: 1005: 963: 1820: 1603: 1405: 984: 937: 807: 793: 2027: 2001: 1890: 1555: 1331: 1208: 887: 771: 109: 2119: 1976: 1506: 952:

Just to let you know, I added a space into the two separate words above and mentioned; 'abovementioned'.

710: 613: 552: 686:. So this applicative verb, I think, is a good example of an X° that is not a lexeme. Hope this helps! — 1938: 1838: 1799: 1359: 219: 2023: 1302:. That is the discussion of semantic primes. While I think it might be worthwhile to have some link to 859: 835: 736:

Yes, please add info on that. As it stands right now, the entire article is only about word boundaries.

129: 1595: 1575: 1526: 1462: 1397: 1145: 1096: 976: 955: 929: 899: 879: 799: 763: 687: 596: 499: 449: 432: 408: 1694: 1207:

needs merging here, it is a copy of the Citizendium article on the topic and the two are redundant.

190: 1698: 1104: 1075: 161: 55: 285:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1666: 1391:

Does anyone know the book and the page on which it was printed? I think it was the "blue book".

737: 541:), and in cases of compounding one morphological word can consist of two phonolgical words (like 376: 360: 347:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

269: 125: 70: 647:, number, cases, verbal extensions, etc.). Thus, to quote Jackendoff (2002:154) on this issue, 1972: 1566: 1502: 1427: 51: 2058: 2046: 1834: 1795: 1640: 1571: 1486: 1355: 1315: 1281: 1235: 1190: 1036: 640: 636: 606:

that isn't an X° or an X° (not counting empty categories, of course) that isn't a lexeme? --

473:"fan-freakin'-tastic" equals exactly "fantastic" except with an intensifying expletive in it 175: 478:

They are different because the former has an intensifying expletive, as you have written.

2045:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

1458: 1303: 1295: 1247: 1204: 498:

as an example of divisibility of a word in some situations, regardless of its meaning. -

1833:). Anyway, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere useful without reliable sources. — 1472: 1442: 1257: 1126: 1100: 1071: 1021: 708: 611: 569: 550: 830:

It merely says that it demonstrates elements of a polysynthetic language, not that it

2206: 1970:*to take location) and changing the order of the constituents (They turned up. -: --> 1830: 1662: 1652:

Last edited at 16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

1625: 564: 423: 372: 1244:

I don't see why we need to merge Citizendium's article into our own. I would simply

1423: 849: 824: 749: 141: 2054: 1815:

used, and then would be words, because theres an idea connected to that sound. -

1769: 1760:-form glyph, or string of glyphs, which may either emulate the spoken form (cf. 1636: 1523:

It just... defies any description, you, German-Linguistic-Expert. I pitty you.

1311: 1231: 1186: 1032: 343: 282: 263: 1749: 1354:. Merge, delete and save some of it, whatever you call it, it sounds good.-- 644: 259: 1438: 1252: 1121: 1016: 704: 607: 546: 563:

proposition in formal logic. It may or may not have a psychological basis (

1765: 1761: 1729: 973:

the study ofwods was proven to be sorts of a language lily schwarz 11

1753: 253: 232: 1741: 926:"a word" is only a part. And what the hell is a "powerful concept"? 461: 1969:*a blind and tiny spot), the substitution test (to take place -: --> 1437:

Sure, go for it. That template is seriously underused on Knowledge.

1420:

Shouldn't this article include a link to the Wiktionary definition?

522:, which corresponds to a terminal node (X°) in a syntactic tree, and 1745: 1682: 643:. Grammatical words can have a lot of affixes in those languages ( 445: 414: 510:

As I understand it, there are at least two different meanings of

1737: 1307: 1299: 1185:

Done. I have merged two sentences from Word (language) to Word.

1068:

Obviously the philosophy section I created needs a little work.

392:

exactly "fantastic" except with an intensifying expletive in it

24: 2233:

Knowledge level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences

1989: 1878: 658:

To give a real example, consider the following Swahili verbs:

184: 15: 2198: 2178: 2163: 2144: 2123: 2101: 2082: 2062: 2031: 1980: 1953: 1919: 1862: 1848: 1824: 1809: 1785: 1722: 1702: 1670: 1644: 1607: 1583: 1559: 1538: 1490: 1466: 1446: 1431: 1409: 1368: 1344: 1319: 1285: 1262: 1239: 1221: 1194: 1157: 1131: 1112: 1079: 1040: 1026: 1009: 988: 967: 941: 911: 891: 862: 852: 838: 811: 775: 752: 740: 438: 380: 784:

expression, gestural or tactile, computational and etc.).

2073:

Mga salitang pareho ang baybay mag ka iba ang kahulugan

2223:

Knowledge vital articles in Society and social sciences

1620: 160: 2238:

B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences

338:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

1764:) or else represent the idea through symbolism (cf. 1310:, I would not object to a redirect without merging. 1178:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

281:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1031:I have removed the sentence from the lead section. 1298:that is both sourced and not already discussed at 2022:None of these words can be used by white people. 1986:Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1875:Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2019 1624:, and are posted here for posterity. Following 1088:section or something, mentioning the likes of " 858:That would go in another article, I believe. -- 1618:The comment(s) below were originally left at 1181:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 490:. Actually, meaning doesn't matter. We used 174: 8: 1676:Word Boundaries (Analytic vs. Agglutinative) 407:discussion here. Hope I didn't scare you! — 1394:Thanks a lot! Otherwise: a great article. 464:, depending on linguists) because the word 1593: 1524: 227: 1328:Knowledge:WikiProject Citizendium Porting 369:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment 2075:2405:8D40:48D9:2E17:178D:5019:166B:3BED 1772:terms, a word is the smallest element.. 1065:revert or partially revert my changes. 367:Above undated message substituted from 229: 188: 395:okay, someone reverted it. Whatever. 7: 1230:. These are clearly the same topic. 1172:The following discussion is closed. 1084:I also think this could use maybe a 460:is a fine example of infixation (or 275:This article is within the scope of 2248:Mid-importance Linguistics articles 1855:2600:1:9A03:5FBC:7D74:79C5:D9FB:283 1752:composed of sequences of words. In 401:(you can sign posts by typing ~~~~) 218:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 352: 348: 14: 1626:several discussions in past years 796:) 07:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 649:"the number of grammatical words 295:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics 2253:WikiProject Linguistics articles 2218:Knowledge level-3 vital articles 2037: 1993: 1925: 1882: 1374:The discussion above is closed. 355:. Further details are available 342: 298:Template:WikiProject Linguistics 262: 252: 231: 198: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1509:) 8:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 315:This article has been rated as 2228:B-Class level-3 vital articles 2063:21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 2032:20:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 1744:label —a singular or compound 989:22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 1: 1954:00:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 1920:00:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 1863:03:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC) 1748:which can then be used in an 1703:21:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC) 1608:07:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC) 968:01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 827:07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC 812:07:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 776:06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 628:run (verb) + er (nominalizer) 289:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2243:B-Class Linguistics articles 2083:08:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) 1849:12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 1825:03:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 1810:11:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 1786:02:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 1723:02:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 1476: 1388:of the /famous/ quotation. 1271: 1132:06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1113:04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1080:03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1027:07:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1010:22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 942:02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 912:06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 892:19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 863:09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 853:05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 839:09:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 381:05:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC) 2016:to reactivate your request. 2004:has been answered. Set the 1905:to reactivate your request. 1893:has been answered. Set the 1584:01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1560:19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 1491:05:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1473:You are welcome to add some 1447:05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1432:23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2269: 2199:00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 2179:00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 2164:00:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 2145:00:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 2102:00:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 1981:15:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC) 1645:16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 1589:ĐỀ CƯƠNG ÔN TẬP NGỮ VĂN 6 741:07:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 321:project's importance scale 1633: 1539:10:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC) 1467:18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1195:19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 1158:02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC) 1041:20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 753:17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 502:02:31, 2005 May 10 (UTC) 314: 247: 226: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2124:08:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 2107:USmghhx,gmdm hhhhfdfutyz 1671:19:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 1410:09:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 1376:Please do not modify it. 1369:04:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1345:15:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 1320:20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1286:17:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1263:16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1240:16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1222:15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1175:Please do not modify it. 618:6 July 2005 21:58 (UTC) 602:6 July 2005 21:00 (UTC) 506:Different kinds of words 1683:the Chinese poetry here 715:7 July 2005 06:40 (UTC) 693:6 July 2005 22:45 (UTC) 557:6 July 2005 10:32 (UTC) 439:18:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC) 415:18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC) 278:WikiProject Linguistics 2213:B-Class vital articles 2047:"change X to Y" format 1960:Multi-word expressions 75:avoid personal attacks 386: 359:. Student editor(s): 205:level-3 vital article 100:Neutral point of view 450:Expletive infixation 387:abso-bloomin'-lutely 301:Linguistics articles 105:No original research 1756:, the 'label' is a 1545:Definition and Lede 760:written language. 1621:Talk:Word/Comments 1614:Assessment comment 1251:without merging. + 868:Confusing to whom? 670:'pay for, to' and 520:morphological word 488:freakin' fantastic 431:a fine example. — 429:absobloomin'lutely 357:on the course page 270:Linguistics portal 214:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2020: 2019: 1909: 1908: 1650: 1649: 1610: 1598:comment added by 1567:critical thinking 1541: 1529:comment added by 1400:comment added by 1365: 1148:comment added by 1116: 1099:comment added by 979:comment added by 970: 958:comment added by 944: 932:comment added by 918:Powerful Concept? 903: 894: 882:comment added by 802:comment added by 778: 766:comment added by 631:non-redundantly.) 584:A third sense is 579:phonological word 527:phonological word 446:Infix#Linguistics 335: 334: 331: 330: 327: 326: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2260: 2113:@njvxc*,7*lHuff 2053:if appropriate. 2041: 2040: 2011: 2007: 1997: 1996: 1990: 1937:if appropriate. 1929: 1928: 1900: 1896: 1886: 1885: 1879: 1770:language science 1631: 1630: 1623: 1572:natural language 1481: 1412: 1363: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1276: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1177: 1160: 1115: 1093: 991: 953: 927: 901: 877: 814: 761: 750:Kaseluris, Nikos 712: 615: 554: 514:in linguistics: 383: 354: 350: 346: 303: 302: 299: 296: 293: 272: 267: 266: 256: 249: 248: 243: 235: 228: 211: 202: 201: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2203: 2202: 2187: 2152: 2133: 2090: 2071: 2051:reliable source 2038: 2009: 2005: 1994: 1988: 1962: 1935:reliable source 1926: 1922: 1898: 1894: 1883: 1877: 1710: 1678: 1658: 1619: 1616: 1590: 1576:Quercus solaris 1547: 1531:203.230.226.234 1521: 1515: 1499: 1479: 1455: 1418: 1395: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1362: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1304:Semantic primes 1296:Word (language) 1274: 1248:Word (language) 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205:Word (language) 1202: 1173: 1166: 1150:172.162.126.201 1143: 1094: 1086:popular culture 1051: 997: 974: 950: 920: 870: 846: 821: 797: 730:group of sounds 728:association of 724: 713: 616: 555: 508: 500:TAKASUGI Shinji 486:is the same as 389: 366: 353:9 December 2020 340: 300: 297: 294: 291: 290: 268: 261: 241: 212:on Knowledge's 209: 199: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2266: 2264: 2256: 2255: 2250: 2245: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2225: 2220: 2215: 2205: 2204: 2191:117.20.115.222 2186: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2171:117.20.115.222 2156:117.20.115.222 2151: 2148: 2137:117.20.115.222 2132: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2111: 2108: 2094:117.20.115.222 2089: 2086: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2049:and provide a 2018: 2017: 1998: 1987: 1984: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1912:118.172.62.228 1910: 1907: 1906: 1887: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1851: 1778:184.250.56.111 1774: 1773: 1715:184.250.56.111 1709: 1708:What is a word 1706: 1677: 1674: 1657: 1654: 1648: 1647: 1615: 1612: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1546: 1543: 1519: 1514: 1511: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1417: 1414: 1384: 1381: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1360: 1348: 1347: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1289: 1288: 1265: 1242: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1168: 1167: 1165: 1162: 1135: 1134: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1002:129.21.191.202 996: 993: 960:172.142.10.142 949: 946: 919: 916: 915: 914: 869: 866: 855:Knowledge.org 845: 842: 834:an example. -- 820: 819:Polysyntethism 817: 816: 815: 785: 780: 779: 756: 755: 744: 743: 723: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 709: 696: 695: 694: 632: 612: 593: 582: 574: 559: 558: 551: 523: 507: 504: 476: 475: 468:is separated. 442: 441: 418: 417: 403: 402: 388: 385: 349:24 August 2020 339: 336: 333: 332: 329: 328: 325: 324: 317:Mid-importance 313: 307: 306: 304: 287:the discussion 274: 273: 257: 245: 244: 242:Mid‑importance 236: 224: 223: 217: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2265: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2234: 2231: 2229: 2226: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2216: 2214: 2211: 2210: 2208: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2189:បង ប្អូន ល្អ 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2154:បង ប្អូន ល្អ 2149: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2135:បង ប្អូន ល្អ 2130: 2126: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2092:បង ប្អូន ល្អ 2087: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2015: 2012:parameter to 2003: 1999: 1992: 1991: 1985: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1966: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1932: 1924: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1904: 1901:parameter to 1892: 1888: 1881: 1880: 1874: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831:Dummy pronoun 1828: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817:184.250.0.250 1813: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1707: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1690: 1686: 1684: 1675: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1655: 1653: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1632: 1629: 1627: 1622: 1613: 1611: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1600:123.19.123.80 1597: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1544: 1542: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1518: 1512: 1510: 1508: 1504: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1483: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1415: 1413: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402:88.74.147.134 1399: 1392: 1389: 1382: 1377: 1370: 1366: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1335: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1269: 1266: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1249: 1243: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1212: 1206: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1170: 1169: 1163: 1161: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1139: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1048: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1007: 1003: 994: 992: 990: 986: 982: 981:65.60.183.140 978: 971: 969: 965: 961: 957: 947: 945: 943: 939: 935: 934:58.179.95.145 931: 923: 917: 913: 909: 905: 897: 896: 895: 893: 889: 885: 881: 873: 867: 865: 864: 861: 856: 854: 851: 843: 841: 840: 837: 833: 828: 826: 818: 813: 809: 805: 804:60.241.15.151 801: 795: 791: 790:60.241.15.151 788:significance. 786: 782: 781: 777: 773: 769: 768:71.133.74.137 765: 758: 757: 754: 751: 746: 745: 742: 739: 738:DanielDemaret 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 721: 714: 706: 702: 697: 692: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 650: 646: 642: 638: 633: 629: 625: 620: 619: 617: 609: 604: 603: 601: 598: 594: 591: 587: 583: 580: 575: 571: 566: 561: 560: 556: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531:prosodic word 529:(also called 528: 524: 521: 517: 516: 515: 513: 505: 503: 501: 497: 495: 489: 485: 483: 474: 471: 470: 469: 467: 463: 459: 457: 451: 447: 440: 437: 434: 430: 425: 424:reduplication 420: 419: 416: 413: 410: 405: 404: 400: 398: 397: 396: 393: 384: 382: 378: 374: 370: 364: 362: 361:Ajlappenbusch 358: 345: 337: 322: 318: 312: 309: 308: 305: 288: 284: 280: 279: 271: 265: 260: 258: 255: 251: 250: 246: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 206: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2188: 2153: 2134: 2116:185.85.57.96 2114: 2091: 2072: 2042: 2024:Thyne mother 2021: 2013: 2002:edit request 1973:Megaman en m 1967: 1963: 1949: 1944: 1939: 1930: 1902: 1891:edit request 1841: 1802: 1775: 1757: 1733: 1711: 1695:Blanket P.I. 1691: 1687: 1679: 1659: 1651: 1617: 1594:— Preceding 1591: 1552:216.96.76.79 1548: 1525:— Preceding 1522: 1516: 1503:Speling12345 1500: 1456: 1453:Intext cites 1422: 1419: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1375: 1351: 1267: 1258: 1253: 1245: 1227: 1203: 1180: 1174: 1171: 1140: 1136: 1127: 1122: 1089: 1085: 1083: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1049:introduction 1022: 1017: 998: 972: 951: 924: 921: 884:68.180.55.14 874: 871: 860:124.170.35.1 857: 847: 836:124.170.35.1 831: 829: 822: 729: 727: 725: 700: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 648: 627: 623: 590:lexical item 589: 585: 578: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 519: 511: 509: 493: 491: 487: 481: 479: 477: 472: 465: 455: 453: 443: 428: 422:example, in 399: 394: 390: 365: 341: 316: 276: 220:WikiProjects 203: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1740:that has a 1663:Nick Beeson 1396:—Preceding 1144:—Preceding 1095:—Preceding 1000:somewhere. 995:Portmanteau 975:—Preceding 954:—Preceding 928:—Preceding 878:—Preceding 844:Pop Culture 798:—Preceding 762:—Preceding 573:interface). 292:Linguistics 283:linguistics 239:Linguistics 148:free images 31:not a forum 2207:Categories 2169:015935199 2006:|answered= 1965:article. 1895:|answered= 1750:expression 1513:Ridiculous 1497:Suggestion 1459:Ratibgreat 1416:Wiktionary 1383:Quotations 722:Definition 645:noun class 570:Jackendoff 466:absolutely 2185:015935199 2043:Not done: 1931:Not done: 1758:graphical 1101:Dranorter 1072:Dranorter 948:Greetings 672:kununulia 208:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2150:tacedook 2131:racedook 2088:tacedook 2069:Filipino 1845:contribs 1806:contribs 1766:ideogram 1762:alphabet 1730:language 1596:unsigned 1592:Câu 1: 1527:unsigned 1398:unsigned 1146:unsigned 1109:contribs 1097:unsigned 977:unsigned 956:unsigned 930:unsigned 880:unsigned 800:unsigned 764:unsigned 543:doghouse 373:PrimeBOT 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1945:Vampire 1835:Granger 1796:Granger 1754:writing 1424:Dlabtot 1356:Patrick 1352:Support 1341:Windows 1246:delete 1228:Support 1218:Windows 902:AKASUGI 850:Alx xlA 825:惑乱分からん 711:tɔktəmi 701:kulipia 668:kulipia 666:'buy', 664:kununua 662:'pay', 641:Turkish 637:Swahili 624:Aspects 614:tɔktəmi 581:there.) 553:tɔktəmi 494:bloomin 482:freakin 456:bloomin 319:on the 210:B-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2055:Nardog 1768:). In 1742:spoken 1736:is an 1656:suffix 1637:Cnilep 1333:Fences 1312:Cnilep 1268:Delete 1232:Cnilep 1210:Fences 1187:Cnilep 1033:Cnilep 904:Shinji 703:is. -- 660:kulipa 565:Lakoff 496:lutely 484:tastic 462:tmesis 458:lutely 216:scale. 126:Google 2010:|ans= 2000:This 1950:Heart 1899:|ans= 1889:This 1746:sound 1439:—Angr 1337:& 1214:& 1164:Merge 545:). -- 539:won't 535:don't 197:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2195:talk 2175:talk 2160:talk 2141:talk 2120:talk 2098:talk 2079:talk 2059:talk 2028:talk 1977:talk 1940:Nici 1916:talk 1859:talk 1839:talk 1821:talk 1800:talk 1782:talk 1738:idea 1734:word 1732:, a 1719:talk 1699:talk 1667:talk 1641:talk 1604:talk 1580:talk 1565:The 1556:talk 1535:talk 1507:talk 1487:talk 1482:anaɢ 1463:talk 1443:talk 1428:talk 1406:talk 1316:talk 1308:Word 1300:Word 1282:talk 1277:anaɢ 1236:talk 1191:talk 1154:talk 1105:talk 1076:talk 1037:talk 1006:talk 985:talk 964:talk 938:talk 908:talk 888:talk 808:talk 794:talk 772:talk 705:Angr 688:mark 680:-li- 608:Angr 597:mark 586:word 547:Angr 525:the 518:the 512:word 492:abso 454:Abso 448:and 444:See 433:mark 409:mark 377:talk 351:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 25:Word 2008:or 1897:or 1728:In 1685:)? 1306:at 1092:! 678:or 676:-i- 654:are 639:or 588:as 480:Fan 452:. 371:by 311:Mid 176:TWL 2209:: 2197:) 2177:) 2162:) 2143:) 2122:) 2100:) 2081:) 2061:) 2030:) 2014:no 1979:) 1918:) 1903:no 1861:) 1847:) 1823:) 1808:) 1784:) 1721:) 1701:) 1669:) 1643:) 1606:) 1582:) 1558:) 1537:) 1489:) 1475:. 1465:) 1445:) 1430:) 1408:) 1367:} 1330:. 1318:) 1284:) 1259:gr 1254:An 1238:) 1193:) 1156:) 1128:gr 1123:An 1111:) 1107:• 1078:) 1039:) 1023:gr 1018:An 1008:) 987:) 966:) 940:) 910:) 890:) 832:is 810:) 774:) 684:is 537:, 379:) 363:. 156:) 54:; 2193:( 2173:( 2158:( 2139:( 2118:( 2096:( 2077:( 2057:( 2026:( 1975:( 1914:( 1857:( 1842:· 1837:( 1819:( 1803:· 1798:( 1780:( 1776:_ 1717:( 1713:- 1697:( 1665:( 1639:( 1602:( 1578:( 1554:( 1533:( 1505:( 1485:( 1480:ʨ 1478:r 1461:( 1441:( 1426:( 1404:( 1364:Ѻ 1361:o 1358:{ 1314:( 1280:( 1275:ʨ 1273:r 1234:( 1189:( 1152:( 1103:( 1074:( 1035:( 1004:( 983:( 962:( 936:( 906:( 900:T 886:( 806:( 792:( 770:( 707:/ 691:✎ 610:/ 600:✎ 549:/ 436:✎ 412:✎ 375:( 323:. 222:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index