Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Linguistics

3825:. In German, we tend to place any subject of a field as a modifier of the field like "Schriftlinguistik", "Atomphysik", "Kernphysik", "Biochemie", but in English the common practice is to reserve this slot for types of research (applied vs basic linguistics), realisation (psycho- vs neuro- vs socio-linguistics) and stratal viewpoint (functional vs formal linguistics). Within linguistics, the endings 'logy' and 'tics' are preferred for the subjects. In German, we used to use an analogous suffix for that: namely, "-lehre" as in "Wortlehre", "Lautlehre", "Schriftlehre" and so on. In English, there is one single exception for that rule: "grammar" which is both the composition and the study of composition (a.k.a. "grammatics" if one wants to be pedantic). Therefore, generative grammar is the generative formal study of grammar and systemic functional grammar is the systemic functional study of grammar. So I'd recommend we stick with common practice in English and analogy to other terms that already exist in English instead of projecting German word composition onto English grammar. 1339:

further out is a different metaphor or logic than "a morpheme is bigger than a phoneme" of the iner layers. Removing it is no big deal to a large extent, and it's probably mostly or only relevant in cases where different conceptualisations of linguistics is discussed. But I think it would be even better if such discussions also had alternate visualisations to the extent possible (which I suppose is in line with what Botterweg14 is proposing). In boring conclusion, different articles call for different visuals and one visual should not be overused, but I don't see how useful it is to discuss one visual's removal without discussing the removal 'from where'. Instead of replacing it, creating multiple alternatives would be great.

4482:). The former is a listing of all verb paradigms and verb periphrasis paradigms and their uses. It focuses on the paradigms whose names include a tense component (present, future, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future perfect) and it list the various uses of the paradigm: for instance, the indicative present paradigm can be used to represent future, present and past events. In contrast, the latter article is a description of how primary tenses (future, present, past) and relative tenses (posteriority, simultaneity, anteriority) are realised by verbs and verb periphrases. However, though very similar, these two articles are scored very differently for importance in the Project Linguistics (high importance vs low importance). 1370:

sounds, phonemes, morphemes, and phrases/sentences. Then, somewhere else in the image (think a thought cloud or something), a label for "meaning" (this could be split into "literal meaning" and "meaning in context"). If we do want to connect these linguistic units to their respective fields of study, I could see simple labels ("Phonetics", "Phonology",...) with lines/arrows drawn to the parts of language they study working nicely. I'd also like to note that in my introductory linguistics class, a visiting professor from Gallaudet had this image on a slide and critiqued it briefly, for many of the same reasons being brought up here - I'm glad we're workshopping it!

3587:

topic of written language in its totality, which is not entirely linguistically oriented. The author specifies that its beginnings, as an organized movement, date back to Germany in the 1970s, but various instances of grapholinguistics emerged at different places (and in different languages). The field now has an established textbook, a special section in the online Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science, and, as of quite recently, a proposal for a unifying general theory. This chapter is centered on graphetics and graphematics in order to expose the crucial linguistic dichotomy – that between form and function.

2706:: I believe there is. It is a distinction between the meaning we intend to communicate on the sender side (‘these are diaphonemes’) and the meaning a linguistically informed reader will understand on the receiver side (‘these are phonemes’). When a reader misunderstands the single slashes to mean ‘these are phonemes’, it is not their fault on the receiver side – ‘these are phonemes’ is the well-established meaning of single slashes. Instead, it is our fault on the sender side – we should have chosen a different delimiter that does not convey the meaning ‘these are phonemes’. -- 932: 4243:). I also tried to track where all these citations had come from and found out that much of it was the work of an editor who openly pushed for the uninhibited use of open-access material. Amateur linguists seem to have a faible for certain authors, next to Blench, late Sasha Vovin is also on the top list of language fan kids. Btw, said editor who dumped all the Blench stuff in Austronesian-related articles was blocked in 2019 for allegedly being involved in an undisclosed paid editing case. – 2308:

called a standard, which means we are using the single slashes in a non-standard way. In my opinion, we should be careful to avoid non-standard symbols since they are confusing to readers and editors alike. Using double slashes would make the diaphonemic nature of our transcription system much more visible. While that might lead to increased discussion, we have chosen this diaphonemic transcription system, so we should be able to justify our choice even if (or when) it becomes more visible.

3222: 545: 3238:—again, this would seem to be biased against post-2019 work using "grapholinguistics", but it's still a tough case for me to make. Even so, I think I'd have to argue it'd be the best, most natural and recognizable for readers—"graphemics" may not reliably indicate a scope wide or narrow like "writing"; "grammatology" will make most think of grammar, and a smaller minority think mostly of Derrida. But I really just want a clear mandate one way or another. 1901:

producing. This results essentially in misinformation. I am not sure by what procedure such a problem is supposed to be solved on Knowledge (XXG) - there is no way to apply the verifiability policy in such a case, so I suppose that it's just something to be solved through consensus. I am just leaving this note for you people who are more involved in the phonetics articles on Knowledge (XXG) and I hope you can work out how to react to such a situation.

692: 514: 3539:(like many researchers do when telling the non-initiated what they do). In my honest opinion, we should stop the practice of searchig for Greek-origin morphemes to name new field of science and start glossing more frequently traditional terminology as in 'he is a cardiologist, a heart specialist.' In the end, I find no reason for science to be communicated systematically by words that no one uses in their daily lives. – 395: 454: 2450:: The double slashes are a quite technical usage in linguistics, however, they look close enough to single slashes by laypersons that I think the latter group will simply pay attention to the actual letters and the tooltip, with the slashes avoiding notice or comment by most. I think the larger problem, however, is: do we want to keep rehashing the same type of battles, like at the talk pages of 4288:. I worry that in the course of trying to improve the PoS article or others like it, I will run into lots of other similar cases where the lack of significant secondary sourcing creates problems for verifying pretty basic claims (it's a shame that the news doesn't cover linguistics research!). How have other editors dealt with this in the past? Is there a good way of approaching this problem? 364: 444: 426: 3563:(2023): despite the title it seems to be a rather general reference work in this vein, and it 1) admits there is and presently cannot be a high degree of consistency among terminology used by its contributors, and 2) "grapholinguistics" nonetheless seems to pop up for the inclusive sense of "linguistic study of writing" in multiple chapters, more than "graphemics" does. 919:. This is the hub of the Wikipedian linguist community; like the coffee machine in the office, this page is where people get together, share news, and discuss what they are doing. Feel free to ask questions, make suggestions, and keep everyone updated on your progress. New talk goes at the bottom, and remember to sign and date your comments by typing four tildes ( 4943: 1947: 1835: 1721: 2276:⫽...⫽ would be technically correct, if we aspire to precision. It's unfamiliar to most people, though, and so may be problematic if we aspire to practical accessibility. (Though, as Nardog remarked /.../ is probably also unfamiliar to most of our readers.) I don't have an opinion either way (for now at least), because of the social dimension. But 4350:. When these kinds of sources are sparse, I have sometimes used advanced textbooks, though one has to be careful since even advanced textbooks may oversimplify or make pedagogical choices that could mislead out of context. Also worth noting that research articles can be secondary sources when they present a synthesis of earlier work (e.g. 1559:"Imaginary languages" is generally a term used as a synonym for conlangs, though I don’t think this is applicable here. From what I can tell, the lyrics in the songs listed don’t hold any particular meaning or structure, (which means that they wouldn’t fit the definition of a conlang, or a language at all for that matter) so at best " 4239:. Unlike his work about languages of Africa, his unpublished (and also published) papers about let's say Austro-Tai, Enggano or Palauan have little impact in the field and are rarely cited (his Enggano paper is mostly cited – if ever – as the flop it is; see also my slightly caustic Wikivoice assessment in the second paragraph of 2845:. It seems silly to me to imagine that a person who was going to complain about the /r/ will see that there are double slashes instead of single slashes and think "oh, of course, it's a diaphonemic transcription!". No, they will still object and the response will still have to be "Knowledge (XXG) uses a diaphonemic system, see 3258:"graphemics" either with their own sections, in a terminology section, or with an "also known as" splice in the lede, whichever is most appropriate. I don't really have any policy to cite (mostly out of ignorance), but this seems at least like an option to consider. It also seems like "graphology" is an option, looking at the 2767:"I've replaced {{IPA|/.../}} in the Key section where they were unambiguously referring to diaphonemes rather than phonemes as far as I could find, but it can be ambiguous sometimes. (E.g. should it be "/A/ is merged with /B/ in accent X", "⫽A⫽ is merged with /B/ in accent X", or "⫽A⫽ is merged with ⫽B⫽ in accent X"?)" 2170:. Your use of "standard" and "non-standard" is highly loaded, and you seem to have taken this opportunity to sneak in the option of making the diaphonemic key not diaphonemic. Though I don't discount the option of creating new keys for different varieties of English coexisting with the diaphonemic key, especially once 1600:

been defined and cited to reliable sources. But another editor is equally certain that they are, and do. What we need now is other editors to weigh in and give opinions as to whether usage examples need to be cited to anything, or constitute "original research". This seemed like a reasonable place to ask.

4507:

I'm not an active participant here, but since no one else has responded, I might as well do so. I think you're attaching too much importance to the importance classification. The editor who assigned the levels probably didn't think about this nearly as much as you. You can change it if you want, just

4393:

I agree with all three comments (by Tropylium, Botterweg14 and Replayful). As Replayful says, we should refrain from making a claim about someone being the first to use a term when there is no independent source for that claim. As Botterweg14 suggests, handbooks and similar kinds of secondary sources

4303:

With any claim like this about history of science / scholarship, what you're dealing with here seems indeed like original research; but then even without secondary sources, also primary sources might be findable, that is say papers that assert "…poverty of the stimulus, as first introduced by Chomsky

3691:

I still crave others' input (of course), but as I've continued to survey the recent literature I think the above plan (Grapholinguistics as the top-level field, with graphemics adjusted in scope as to be roughly analogous to the scope of phonology within the study of speech) is the best reflection of

4688:

No worries. You're doing lots of good work here, so things can happen when we're enthusiastic about building new content. I want to bring the redirect to RfD because it is not an encyclopedic search topic and the target does not (and should not) mention "Ainu-Minoan". Maybe you can consider to put a

3862:

IMHO, we should give precedence to science over pseudoscience, fade, and religion. "Force" should be described as a physical phenomenon and not as in 'I believe in a superior force'. "Vibration" should be described as a physical phenomenon and not as in 'You are a high vibration person'. "Archetype"

2260:

me because, let's face it, most people don't even know the difference between and / /, but we make the distinction anyway because it's contextually important. Phoneme vs diaphoneme is also important, as the same notation can be sensible as a diaphonemic one but not as a phonemic one and vice versa.

2259:

to the change highlights the mistaken perception that our English IPA is the same thing as phonemic transcriptions you see in dictionaries. Different delimiters would at least signal readers that it's a different type of representation. That they wouldn't know exactly what it means is irrelevant for

1338:

I mean, any attempt at a diagram of linguistics and/or its units is going to be regarded as erroneous or inadequate somewhere by some linguist. It's not that great, but there can be no "perfect" diagram of linguistics. I suppose it's right that the combination of meaning-side as just "another" layer

1085:

A couple additional thoughts. To be less phonocentric, the diagram could say "sound/sign" or "externalization" rather than "sound", though it might be worth asking around further to see if there's a better term. Morphology could be lumped with syntax, though I would argue for leaving it out entirely

4374:

was first coined in 1981 by Chomsky). Besides considering sources such as those nicely suggested by Botterweg14, it may be worth reconsidering making such historical statements, i.e. formulating with something else, such as "Chomsky defined the term as XYZ in his 1980 book this way", without claims

4198:

be cited without permission! Is there some backstory here, where there has been discussion on which of them might be reliable, and/or where some editor has actually asked for permission to cite these? Or is all of this just a bad habit of citing easily web-accessible documents in lieu of looking up

3975:

Overall I proceed from more familiar to less familiar, from more concrete to more abstract; the last chapter is addressed more to the linguist than to the general reader—analogy astrology : astronomy :: graphology : graphonomy. (Graphology is the pseudoscience of divining someone’s personality from

2586:

is not. Using the latter without further explanation tells the reader nothing beyond that it's something different from the usual phonemic transcription. However, what is usual differs widely between readers as there is no single "standard" at all (and some dictionaries do use diaphonemic spelling,

2500:

Can you expand on that a bit? I think the focus here is, on a page like Richard D'Oyly Carte or Melbourne, we already have a system that works quite well, Knowledge (XXG)-wide, to provide a singular pronunciation useful across most English dialects. Why would we undermine that by making the wording

1183:

hm. I'm still pushing things around on paper for this, but I think including a general, agreeable, but common word like "externalization" would be a good thing for our crucial audience: people who have acquired an interest, but are still trying to get their bearings for what anything in linguistics

1123:

I also find the diagram problematic. You can certainly draw the hierarchy in a good old structuralist vibe up to syntax. But semantics doesn't fit into the scheme; staying in the naive picture, you can depart from morphology either to syntax or to semantics. Also the choice of pragmatics as "outer"

2307:

Sure, non-linguists will not know about these delimiters at all. But I imagine that virtually all persons with at least some training in linguistics will know about the convention that single slashes indicate a phonemic transcription. I believe this convention is so well-established that it can be

1599:

I seem to have waded into a minefield by restoring six example sentences at Franglais. They were deleted last year and again after I restored them as "unsourced" and "original research". I don't think they're research at all, and don't require sources as simple examples of something that's just

1323:

What if we converted this into a table, where the left column consists of linguistic disciplines, and the right consists of the fundamental unit of analysis in that discipline? For example, the discourse is the fundamental unit of pragmatics, as the morpheme is the fundamental unit of morphology.

1068:

The hierarchical structure lives within (some) of the subfields, not between them. Combining words gives you a phrase, but combining phones doesn't give you a phoneme. So I think the minimally misleading approach would be to represent it as a sound vs form vs meaning split, while lumping together

3586:

In Chapter 6, Vuk-Tadija Barbarić provides a brief introduction to grapholinguistics, focusing mainly on its core subdisciplines: graphetics and graphematics (or graphemics). Historically, grapholinguistics can be perceived as a neglected subdiscipline of linguistics, though it also explores the

2992:

Do people currently answer with that? The distinction between phonemic and diaphonemic transcriptions is incredibly obscure. And a transcription with an /r/ could be interpreted as phonemic even for non-rhotic varieties as long as you assume there is an underlying /r/ that is not realized except

2909:)." To be fully correct, I think you would need to replace only the first two uses with double slashes, but not the second two. (Note that the mixing of different slashes would probably be confusing to many readers.) This would be a lot of work and would involve some difficult judgement calls. -- 2854:

I also want to reiterate the comment by Adumbrativus, that some articles use a mix of various templates and non-templated transcriptions, and that changing only the template will introduce distinctions that were never intended. This is not as simple as changing a template; if the change is made,

1433:

Hello, I have noticed that phrases on Knowledge (XXG) often need work and are caught in limbo between WikiProjects. I am considering starting a Phases Wikiproject, but I want to make sure that it isn't within the scope of this WikiProject but often missed. Phrases aren't covered by this or other

1138:

I don't understand the last part of this comment- the "discourse" is, in a sense, the fundamental unit of analysis of pragmatics, and this is reflected in the diagram by the presence of the string "meaning in context of discourse" in the bottom half of the ring whose top half contains the string

4604:

I have requested the permission. For what it's worth, the Ainu-Minoan languages article looks like an AfD candidate to me. The article is largely a summary of two papers by independent researchers plus some tangentially related information based on more reliable sources. It does properly signal

3911:

Nonetheless, grapholinguistics stayed out of the due theoretical limelight in linguistics, allowing a more befitting name – graphology – to be appropriated by a pseudoscientific discipline. This course of events inevitably led to a number of terminological issues, more evidently pronounced than

2756:

is on 50,000 pages. There may be a gap between what some Project users think Wiki's English IPA usage is/should be, and how it's actually being used. (E.g. cases where use was intended as phonemic transcription, not diaphonemic). Samples of some articles' usage should be examined to check that,

1900:

judge with some degree of certainty don't make me very confident about the ones I can't. It looks to me as if he simply overestimates his pronunciation skills - both his ability to control what his speech organs are doing and his ability to correctly categorise by ear the sounds that he ends up

3443:

No. Epigraphy is the study of inscriptions. Both it and palaeography are inherently historically-minded disciplines. This is the study of written language as a modality like speech and signing. Study of this kind has been published since the 80s, and I think categorization as jargon just seems

1369:

I suggest that we perhaps focus less on the fields of study and more on the structure; the image is called "Major levels of linguistic structure", after all. We could, uncontroversially I think, have some sort of hierarchical diagram (coencentric circles or a pyramid or something) in the order

2684:

Perhaps my wording could be clearer regarding the need to distinguish it. There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from because no phonemic one is provided alongside it in these articles. Thus, only one kind of delimiter is needed, and a single slash is a valid choice for

2425:

Yes, it is standard. The IPA ''Handbook'' defines square brackets as "begin/end phonetic transcription" and the solidus as "begin/end phonemic transcription" (e.g. p. 175), though on p. 27 they say, "conventionally ... symbols for the phonemes of a language are placed within oblique lines: /

983:

Thanks for raising this point here. The bottom half of the diagram about the different parts of language has some issues but seems to do better than the top half of the diagram about the different fields of inquiry. For example, a sentence is made up of words but morphology is not generally

3257:

Is there any reason not to call the main page "Study of writing systems"? If the term is that nebulous and/or neither term dominates the literature, it seems reasonable to me that we would call the main page something extremely obvious and maybe distinguish the nuances of "grammatology" or

2587:

although usually not IPA). From the reader's point of view, lay or not, there is simply no need to distinguish diaphonemes from phonemes in the lead of an article that has nothing to do with phonetics or phonology. It wouldn't be wrong to use double slashes, but IMO, the single ones

1811:

Hi all. I recently nominated a page I created for GA status and forgot to mention it here in case anyone wanted to review. I invite anyone interested in historical linguistics in general and PIE in particular, as it deals with phonological change in PIE. Let me know what you think!

1086:

since people generally split it into morphophonology/morphosyntax/morphosemantics these days, at least within theoretical linguistics. (Since you haven't mentioned psycholinguistics or sociolinguistics, I'm assuming you're thinking of a diagram with a relatively narrow scope.)

3866:

In other harsher words, if a group of unemployed workers decides to sell bullshit such as "vibration therapy", "direction to archetype" and "handwriting analysis", we should not let their misuses of actual scientific terms become the main article for the terms they misused.

4186:

possibly being Chadic based on nothing but one presentation of his. Has anyone else been paying attention to this phenomenon? I can start listing more examples if this does not ring a bell for others. Less common outside of Africa I think, but I've seen other examples too.

4319:

I concur with this comment, but wanted to add that there are sources about the history of linguistics which can be useful in these kinds of moments. You could take a peek at work by Randy Allen Harris and Frederick Newmeyer to see if there are any useful citations there.

2594:

The previous consensus seemed to operate under the impression that double slashes would, thanks to their unfamiliarity, discourage editors from assuming they know what they are doing before reading the MOS and help pages. I don't believe this would be the case.

3858:

What about the option of using the term 'Graphology', which is the one used in actual research, articles and books? We can always start the article on 'Graphology' with a pointer to the "Writing-analysis (pseudoscience)" in case someone is searching for

3839:

As I said above, "graphology" in common parlance is essentially already taken by the handwriting-analysis pseudoscience. The schema above, to the best of my ability, seems to reflect the emerging hierarchy of usage in recent English-language literature.

1365:

for Knowledge (XXG) to have some sort of diagram for this "kind of thing" (showing the relationships between linguistic structure and fields of study). It's hard enough to illustrate most linguistics articles as-is, and this is a good sort of diagram in

3200:

has likely kept others over the last 20 years from asking this question, I think we need to sort out a proper article for "the study of writing systems". There are presently two underdeveloped articles that seem to be coterminous in having this scope:

2977:

As for the examples when it's unclear how we would fix them, that shows that they're either inherently ambiguous or poorly written. Perhaps explicitly using diaphonemic delimiters will ferret out other badly thought out transcriptions in our articles.

3912:

otherwise in linguistics (e.g. the use of the terms grammatology, graphonomy, or writing system research). Meletis (2019a: 63) considers "writing system research as roughly synonymous with grapholinguistics – the latter being probably a bit broader."

3462:

But at some point the study of writing systems, in a historical context, does become pretty exclusively the study of inscriptions. I did misunderstand a bit of what you were saying, but I thought you were actually grasping for a new term here, sorry.

2096:

We could stop the non-standard use of the single slashes by using a different delimiter to enclose our diaphonemic transcriptions, preferrably a delimiter used outside of Knowledge (XXG) such as double slashes. A transcription might look as follows:

2688:

Of course, editors need to be familiar with the conventions used, and this includes the fact we use diaphonemes. But double slashes aren't unambiguous in denoting that, and I wouldn't expect changing delimiter to make these discussions any shorter.

4605:(though perhaps not clearly enough) that this a fringe theory, but I'm not seeing clear signs of notability. If I was a page reviewer, I might ask the author for their thoughts first since I know from experience that AfD can be frustrating. 2573:

But the idea that it would be somehow more correct or better aligned with some standard than single slashes just because the transcriptions are diaphonemic rather than phonemic seems mistaken in the first place. The distinction between and

861: 946:, which seems to be useful in the broadest sense but is also more erroneous than it has to be. Obviously, each of these fields is not neatly contained, but that is not a problem in itself in my mind, that's the nature of science. While 2519:

The focus of this discussion should be on the delimiters. I don’t know whether our system works so well when we keep rehashing the same type of battles. I believe marking more overtly that our transcriptions are diaphonemic will help.

3033:

But they don't represent a phoneme, they represent a diaphoneme. Any system using /ɒ/ for General American is automatically diaphonemic. And if it's talking about symbols, then I guess technically they should be angle brackets (see

3337:

to use a technical term; we generally do so because it dominates the literature. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't think we should be obscure when the only purpose is to use technical jargon for the sake of technical

1875:

and I really don't think that what he is pronouncing there is a voiceless alveolar tap or flap (if you are wondering why, you can see my more specific comment on the talk page of that article). As I look through his other uploads

4207:

maybe foremost) — on many other topics he has a habit of advancing audacious novel or minority views, which of course might lead to somewhere eventually, but already citing them prominently across Knowledge (XXG) sure seems like

4394:

are the best sources to support such statements, but I also agree with Tropylium that even primary research articles still can serve as secondary sources for certain statements especially when they summarize earlier research. –

1531:– in my opinion at the very least a linguistics-adjacent topic – identifies three songs as having been sung in an "imaginary language". I think the articles on the individual songs do likewise, but I have not checked yet. 2221:. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? -- 2787:"Suddenly changing only this template means that such pages now use a combination of / and ⫽, in a haphazard way which confusingly appears as if the use of the two notations is contrastive but is actually unintended." 2961:

I believe the benefit of using double slashes would be that they could no longer answer with a big “but Knowledge (XXG) explicitly indicates that the transcriptions are phonemic by enclosing them in single slashes.”

3359:

My primary reason for preferring "grapholinguistics" is because it seems more likely to scan to the average reader, given corresponding subfields almost always end in "linguistics", either as one word or otherwise.

4279:

that Chomsky was using the term in 1980, but not that that was its first instance (i.e., "coining"). While I believe the article's claim to be true, I can't see a good way of sourcing it that doesn't run afoul of

2188:

As you know, other editors have immediately questioned the diaphonemic transcription system upon seeing the double slashes. That is why I thought it must be mentioned. But since you don’t like it, I will reword.

4548:. It's currently a bit backlogged and help would be appreciated. I semi-regularly patrol it and it's usually quite straightforward, but sometimes there are articles that need a more expert eye than I have. 2662:

There's also the vertical pipe. I wouldn't want curly brackets; that's too much like set theory, and IMO appropriate when delimiting sets of phonemes that constitute archiphonemes, but not something like

3620:

is very reasonable (and they also show that there is something to write in the article). I had a look at the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems (Coulmas 1999) some time ago, which doesn't contain

2153: 523: 2228: 2000:

in LaTeX. I know the absence of this feature has been an annoyance for editors in this topic area for quite some time, so I thought I would link the discussion here in case anybody wanted to chime in.

1541:

However, there are some popular press articles that use the "imaginary language" terminology. Should we follow what a non-specialist source says over the correct terminology? If so, when and when not?

868: 964:

I think this sort of diagram is obviously appealing, but it needs another look. It is used on many important linguistics articles, so I think we seriously should consider redesigning or replacing it.

673: 2837:

changing to double slashes, mostly per mwgamera, but also I want to add that it is very unlikely that changing to double slashes will reduce conflict related to non-rhotic pronunciations, like at

856: 852: 848: 843: 1545: 4235:

Yes, this phenomenon also has crossed my path in articles about languages of SE Asia and Oceania. I have trimmed and thrown out quite a lot of material based on citations of Blench's works per

3396:. I think that broad definition makes sense—it doesn't bother me that there's overlap with palaeography; there's plenty of overlap between subfields linguistics and with adjacent disciplines. 3235: 4435: 4412: 1988:

at the Technical Village Pump about developing the functionality for cross-referenceable running example numbers. The idea being that Knowledge (XXG) could have a system sort of like sort of

592: 2459: 2143: 1892:), I find many of them unconvincing, too (again, I've left comments on their discussion pages, in case someone is wondering what I don't like about them). I feel far from equipped to judge 184: 3228:, "grapholinguistics" is my clear personal preference: it is a fairly new term—though there seems to be considerable recent work advocating and employing it, though much of it in German ( 3378:

Would "grapholinguistics" include reconstructing an ancient language from its writing system? That wouldn't be covered by "graphemics", which is the study of the writing system itself.

4271:, for instance, there just isn't much outside of research papers that discusses it. This creates problems for sourcing even pretty basic claims: for instance, that article states that 1069:

phonetics/phonology and semantics/pragmatics. That would compromise on informativeness rather than truthfulness. Ranking the Maxim of Quality above the Maxim of Quantity, if you will.

4338:

The best secondary sources for these kinds of topics are handbook articles, scholarly encyclopedia articles, and their kin. For instance in the case you mention, Lidz and Lasnik have

4917: 4559:– give me a ping if you do so and I'll make it's processed promptly. You will need to have an extended confirmed account and some prior experience in writing new articles, reviewing 704: 263: 119: 4813:

article, and I'm finding it difficult to modernize the phonology section in particular. I believe a lot of it is due to rapid evolution of Cajun English that I've tried to explain

4621:

I have started with PROD. If that fails, I'll proceed with AfD. There should be no place and zero tolerance for the promotion of non-notable fringe hypotheses in Knowledge (XXG). –

3038:). But that's getting off topic. I am really curious how people in favour of double slashes would handle this situation. Is anyone in favour of mixing double and single slashes? -- 2937:

The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects. This just demonstrates the difficulty involved in introducing this distinction. --

830: 823: 818: 813: 806: 801: 796: 789: 784: 779: 772: 767: 762: 666: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 755: 750: 745: 738: 733: 728: 721: 716: 711: 587: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 112: 355: 582: 1549: 1528: 2285:

When I first saw it, I thought it was a template coding error. When I realized it was intentional, I wondered if it would create a lot of drama, then forgot about it.

628: 76: 4821:

wrong. I wanted to see if y'all can help me find some sources, especially about modern forms of rhoticity/non-rhoticity, L/R/W sound changes, and nasalized vowels.

1268:

Yes, but the original sound/sign comment wasn't an exact matchup, as the analog of phone isn't a sign, but a parametric unit (handshape, location, movement, etc.)

659: 577: 105: 4545: 3052:

Sure, if we mix phonemic and diaphonemic transcription, just as if we were to mix phonemic and morphophonemic transcription, which is a rather common occurrence.

618: 613: 66: 52: 4863:

In my view, it is almost never justified for a general encyclopedia article to go back into reconstructed etymologies. The article isn't about the word "land".

2628:

I disagree with your point of view that we there is no need to distinguish between diaphonemes and phonemes. Such a need arises regularly around the diaphoneme

943: 219: 3262:

page. All in all, of the ones you've picked, I think "Graphemics" is likely the best candidate, given the possibility of confusion with grammar and Derrida.

1782: 1628: 1534:

I may well be mistaken, but "imaginary language" does not sound like the proper term to me. I think the more accurate term would be (some sub-category of?)

633: 608: 57: 47: 4978: 4973: 1758:

The audio for IPA is a diphthong and in my opinion should be replaced as there is a superior recording freely available on Wikimedia Commons. Discussion

1232:

I think jargon is necessary, and one of the most difficult things to do in technical writing (or graphing) is to introduce all of it in the right order.

2420: 2041: 4983: 3097: 1464: 4767: 2969: 3159: 2923:

No, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ in those sentences are phonemes, not diaphonemes, as evident from the fact it says "The phonemes are" and /ɔ/ lacks a length mark.

2174:

becomes available, making the diaphonemic key phonemic is such a tall order I don't even know how it could be done. Let's focus on the delimiters.

2085:). This non-standard use of single slashes confuses readers and editors alike and regularly leads to disputes, for instance the recent edit war in 623: 225: 71: 2713: 2651: 2644:. For these cases, it makes a real difference when we explicitly indicate that it’s something different from the usual phonemic transcription. -- 2527: 2495: 1393: 1320:

a ring- that is, between the text in the top part of the ring and in the bottom part- is true and should be included in Knowledge (XXG) articles.

4174:

Having been poking around languages of Africa more recently, one phenomenon that sticks out to me is frequent reference to unpublished works by

2196: 4916:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

2127:

We could keep the single slashes and change our transcription system to be phonemic, thus restoring the standard meaning of the single slashes.

4814: 2656:

Yeah, Americans don't seem to care that we transcribe British vowel distinctions that they don't make. But //r// has been a chronic objection.

4155: 4131: 3499:—as well as the sources it cites to get a better grasp on what is being studied here and why I think this should likely be reflected onwiki. 3493: 2855:

someone will have to go through every article that has (dia)phonemic transcriptions and manually fix any conflicts that arise. For example,

1985: 4822: 2429:

I suspect the reason for preferring U+2AFD is that it takes up much less space (depending on the font) and doesn't look like an HTML hack.

1650:, a paper defending linguistic polygenesis but starts with the line "Monogenesis of language is widely accepted..."). Is this a good idea? 563: 552: 467: 431: 169: 91: 3472:

No problem! I hope I haven't been unclear in general: if anyone else has questions about what I'm talking about here, please let me know.

2413:), I believe they are less suited because they have been used even less and because they resemble less the well-known single slashes. -- 1016:

I think some sort of visual aid like this is feasible, but it should be correct. Do you think there's any hope of such a presentation?

4742: 4723: 4672: 4649: 3647:

work within what seems to be the nascent framework of this self-describedly emerging field. This would include adjusting the scope of

2974:

Transitioning to any convention is going to be a headache, but I'm starting to think more and more that double solidus is a good idea.

1902: 530: 4770:. It seems to be a more general problem since I noticed something similar on this WikiProject's article alerts. Somewhat puzzling! 2815: 2256: 2139: 950:

at the very least is "true enough" for a visual aid, what is the direct analogy between syntax and semantics? In what sense is the

165: 4766:

I also wanted to mention that many of the articles on this list don't seem to be related to linguistics to me. See, for instance,

1050:

Do you feel that the inner four rings are "true enough" in the sense I've described, or is any hierarchical nature a non-starter?

1034:

I can't think of how I would structure such a diagram. But the boundlessness of the human creative spirit always gives me hope :)

2537: 1702: 1544:

I hope that you will be able to tell me whether I a wrong and thank you in advance for your help in hopefully clearing this up.

4636: 4182:

refers to his 2006 ms. on Afroasiatic classification, and relatively prominently advanced (now edited down by me) a claim about

1165:

and then we would've needed a term that encompassed both, but it didn't stick, and sign language linguists pretty much just use

214: 4384: 4054: 4018: 4009:

could also be a disambiguation page (between Graphematics and Grapholinguistics)? (not that I have strong feelings about it) //

3634: 3035: 2875: 2540:. I said we would have to make sure it's not used before a vowel, but now that I think about it, that can be automated in Lua. 1872: 1352: 4441:

Thought I would give a heads up about this other deletion discussion which might also be relevant to members of this project.

3651:

to reflect the "subfield" of grapholinguistics akin to phonology within the study of speech—i.e. the study of graphemes, with

951: 406: 4045:

Oh yeah, that's right. I'm sorry but I think something weird has happened with the placement of stuff after this thread... //

1728: 1714: 1670: 4351: 205: 4888:

That has consistently confused me too. I cut the section to what it is now by about half. I will consider a bold removal.

3978: 3938: 3589: 3147: 3133: 3006: 2987: 2918: 2827: 2738: 2698: 2679: 2604: 2549: 2514: 2475: 2438: 2297: 2269: 2247: 2183: 4555:

to mark articles in the list as reviewed. If anyone wants to help out but doesn't already have it, you can request it at

3971: 3907: 3582: 1962: 1940: 3434:

that it feels like a jargon neologism for the sake of a jargon neologism creates more confusion that it would resolve.

4527: 4522:

Thank you! I thought there was a process like that of evaluation. I will change it to the same level of Latin tenses.

4490: 3872: 3830: 3544: 1697: 1524:

Hello. I hope by bringing this topic to the attention of people with linguistic knowledge I am doing the right thing.

899: 3094: 2966: 2710: 2648: 2524: 2492: 2417: 2225: 2193: 2150: 4920:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 4418:

Thought I would give a heads up about this deletion discussion which might be relevant to members of this project.

2772: 2762: 1486: 1329: 1144: 363: 258: 2659:

Merriam-Webster uses \back slashes\, or at least they used to. I don't know if that's an intentional distinction.

2568:

the use of double solidus is its poor font support and being needlessly distracting in the lead of many articles.

1842: 1828: 1786: 1564: 4347: 2887: 1000:

I would very much support removing this diagram. It's misleading, to the extent that it makes any sense at all.

878: 643: 374: 4475: 3019:

and how they're commonly used to represent a certain phoneme (across a variety of dictionaries, for instance).

1767: 4826: 4027:

Possibly, but that seems less immediately useful than a redirect + hatnote, given there are two destinations.

2217:

transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are

1644: 1218:? I think a bit o' jargon is tickety-boo in a jargony thingie like all of linguistics painted onto a Frisbee. 412: 4343: 3430:? I’d probably just use epigraphy here in casual conversation, but that’s obviously imprecise. I agree with @ 2632:, when editors insist that phonemic transcriptions in articles tied to non-rhotic varieties of English (e.g. 1648: 4294: 4268: 3685: 3322: 3267: 3087: 2994: 2367:), whereas lacking font support is an important reason against. Regarding the other delimiters mentioned in 1958: 1954: 1871:

He has been uploading sound files as illustrations for various exotic sounds. I ran across his recording at

1817: 1376: 1361:

This discussion seems to have run stale, but I think there's some more thoughts to be thunk: I believe it's

4581: 3011:

Perhaps we can do both. Nardog has recommended the superscript above (perhaps you've already seen). As for

2167: 1927: 4738: 4719: 4704: 4668: 4645: 4626: 4523: 4502: 4486: 4399: 4248: 3885:: could you point me to any? I guess the point I'm making is that the predominant English-language use of 3868: 3826: 3792: 3540: 3129: 3075: 3071: 2959:

hey will still object and the response will still have to be "Knowledge (XXG) uses a diaphonemic system ."

2905: 2899: 2883: 2879: 2734: 2641: 2629: 2622: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2533: 1910: 1906: 1624: 1620: 1129: 931: 4659: 4200: 3067: 2856: 1763: 195: 4776: 4611: 4447: 4424: 4360: 4326: 3383: 3350: 3091: 3057: 2983: 2963: 2838: 2823: 2782: 2707: 2675: 2645: 2633: 2521: 2489: 2451: 2434: 2414: 2293: 2222: 2190: 2161: 2147: 2086: 2006: 1581: 1482: 1453: 1325: 1140: 1092: 1075: 1040: 1006: 475:

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

4556: 4485:

Why is this the case? Are formal descriptions of language more important than functional descriptions?

3758: 3748: 3715: 3616: 3215: 1707: 235: 210: 4544:

For those who aren't aware, there is a bot-maintained list of new, unreviewed linguistics articles at

4354:) though these kinds of articles are likely to be more opinionated than the average handbook article. 2144:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation/Archive 11#Distinction between varieties of English

1821: 1632: 4893: 4853: 4513: 4204: 3143: 3043: 3002: 2942: 2914: 1678: 1605: 1467:. It doesn't look very active, but I doubt a whole new WikiProject just for phrases can fare better. 4817:, and the sources available are mostly outdated and based on very old people, and sometimes they're 4304:(19XX)…". Views like these should be attributed of course, especially if they're only in passing. -- 3692:

the field. I've started a draft article, and of course I invite people to contribute if they fancy.

2134:

This request for comment is a follow-up to the recent bold replacement of the single slashes by the

1885: 1635: 4845: 4380: 4311: 4219: 4050: 4014: 3630: 3120:

I don't have much more to add right now, but I agree with mwgamera's analysis and I am inclined to

2243: 1921: 1416: 1348: 882: 378: 2238:

the change to double slashes, but I'm afraid that this won't be much more than a cosmetic change.

1572:

In the case I’ve missed something and these songs do have the characteristics of a conlang, than "

4875: 4290: 4123:

Barbarić, Vuk-Tadija (2023). "Grapholinguistics". In Condorelli, Marco; Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.).

4035: 3992: 3863:

should be described as a literary phenomenon and not as in 'I unleashed the Cleopatra archetype'.

3848: 3807: 3799:

as potential (welcome) objectors, as those who had concerns above while I was doing my research.

3796: 3773: 3700: 3671: 3603: 3507: 3452: 3404: 3394:

the linguistic subdiscipline dealing with the scientific study of all aspects of written language

3368: 3318: 3303: 3263: 3246: 3178: 3138:

So what happened here? The RfC ended without being closed? Can that happen? What do we do now? --

2997:. The proposal to make it a superscript or enclose it in parentheses makes this more explicit. -- 2694: 2600: 2017:

RfC: Should we keep our non-standard use of single slashes to enclose diaphonemic transcriptions?

1970: 1853: 1813: 1514: 1510: 1401: 1372: 1273: 1240: 1223: 1192: 1174: 1113: 1058: 1024: 972: 884: 459: 379: 126: 4959: 4929: 4897: 4883: 4857: 4830: 4798: 4781: 4746: 4727: 4708: 4676: 4653: 4630: 4616: 4595: 4574: 4531: 4517: 4494: 4452: 4429: 4403: 4388: 4365: 4342:

in the Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences has

4331: 4314: 4297: 4281: 4252: 4222: 4209: 4058: 4040: 4022: 3997: 3876: 3853: 3834: 3812: 3778: 3705: 3676: 3638: 3608: 3548: 3523:

Halliday and Matthiessen (Halliday's introduction to functional linguistics, 2014) use the term

3512: 3467: 3457: 3438: 3409: 3387: 3373: 3354: 3326: 3308: 3271: 3251: 3061: 3047: 3028: 2946: 2932: 2729:. It's technical indeed, but I think we should avoid using single-slashes in a nonstandard way. 2011: 1974: 1931: 1858: 1798: 1771: 1737: 1682: 1659: 1609: 1585: 1553: 1490: 1476: 1457: 1423: 1405: 1379: 1356: 1333: 1291: 1277: 1263: 1245: 1227: 1197: 1178: 1148: 1133: 1118: 1097: 1080: 1063: 1045: 1029: 1011: 993: 977: 544: 2130:

We could do nothing and keep our non-standard use of the single slashes to enclose diaphonemes.

4955: 4793: 4734: 4715: 4700: 4683: 4664: 4641: 4622: 4590: 4569: 4395: 4244: 4152: 4128: 4106: 3625:, but describe some of the other proposals in ways unfit for what we're talking about here. // 3490: 3221: 3125: 3024: 2778: 2730: 2510: 2471: 1732: 1643:

Dutch. They're about similar topics and having an article about linguistic polygenesis would

1420: 1125: 989: 647: 191: 4264: 4236: 3711:

If no one has outstanding objections, once I've finished a self-standing draft my plan is to

1896:

of his uploads, as many of the sounds are rather obscure, but my impressions from the ones I

4771: 4606: 4442: 4419: 4355: 4321: 4240: 4183: 4179: 4096: 3784: 3482: 3431: 3379: 3346: 3182: 3053: 3013:

The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects

2979: 2928: 2846: 2819: 2792: 2753: 2671: 2545: 2430: 2394: 2373: 2348: 2315: 2289: 2265: 2179: 2099: 2060: 2052: 2037: 2001: 1794: 1655: 1577: 1472: 1435: 1287: 1259: 1087: 1070: 1035: 1001: 880: 691: 645: 376: 4560: 4552: 4203:

could apply at times but I think at most to some areas where he has done substantial work (

1282:"Articulations" maybe? That seems to be used in sign language literature (like "phoneme"). 4925: 4889: 4849: 4509: 3139: 3039: 2998: 2953: 2938: 2910: 2171: 1601: 4285: 4191: 1674: 4840:

I was wondering if someone could help clarify and lightly edit the etymology section in

1316:

the rings is problematic, for the reasons discussed already, the relations it expresses

648: 4913: 4907: 4693: 4376: 4305: 4230: 4213: 4127:. Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics. Cambridge University Press. p. 119. 4046: 4010: 3788: 3626: 3464: 3435: 3197: 3174: 2796: 2239: 1917: 1864: 1593: 1502: 1344: 4085:"Writing Systems as Modular Objects: Proposals for Theory Design in Grapholinguistics" 3283:

I pondered this too, but it just happens to be quite unlike most other article titles.

2771:

It's a mistake to rush such widespread changes in response to edit wars or incivility

513: 4967: 4865: 4810: 4028: 3985: 3841: 3817:

In English, the term for 'the study of writing systems' in functional linguistics is

3800: 3766: 3693: 3664: 3596: 3531:, for both synchronic and diachronic studies of 'writing'. However, one can also say 3500: 3445: 3397: 3361: 3296: 3239: 2048:. Nonetheless, we are enclosing the transcriptions in single slashes (mainly through 1966: 1877: 1846: 1693: 1506: 1397: 1269: 1233: 1219: 1185: 1170: 1106: 1105:

guidance, thank you very much. I'll let this thread know if I come up with anything.

1051: 1017: 965: 2462:

from last year on this very topic.) A solution to this might be to make the tone of

1638: 1124:

ring is a bit arbitrary. You could just as well have discourse as the outer level. –

4788: 4585: 4564: 4467: 4463: 4199:

actual published works on the topic? He is a linguist with very diverse interests;

4175: 3754: 3733: 3723: 3427: 3209: 3020: 2532:

One way to make the diaphonemic nature clearer is to use superscript letters like ⟨

2506: 2467: 2024: 1961:, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in 1805: 985: 958: 939: 4194:. Some of these even includes drafts that come with explicit requests for them to 3213:. From everything I've read, if we are to decide what name to use, these two plus 2288:

BTW, Usonian dictionaries also use a diaphonemic system, though without the IPA.

1889: 34: 4272: 4178:, maybe especially in various classification sections. For one example just now, 3393: 3286: 2818:; it would also be preferable to use symbols that display universally. - Thanks, 4848:

definition, which I don't have a source for and thus have not included. Thanks,

3342: 2924: 2758: 2541: 2261: 2175: 1886:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Voiceless_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate.wav

1881: 1790: 1651: 1468: 1341:

Disclaimer: I used to have this picture as my desktop background in high school!

1283: 1255: 472: 29: 4370:

You're definitely pointing out a relevant problem (for instance, I don't think

4339: 1759: 453: 4921: 4006: 3744: 3729: 3719: 3652: 3648: 3314: 3292: 3259: 3203: 2871: 2868: 2670:

is well established. There's just variation on what that something should be.

2485: 2463: 2368: 2214: 2205:

RfC: Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?

2045: 449: 4109: 4950: 4936: 3660: 3423: 2842: 2685:

diaphonemic transcription. There is nothing wrong with our current practice.

2637: 2455: 2142:

There had been a previous consensus on this page to use double slashes, cf.

1560: 4101: 4084: 2757:

before we make large changes that may cause some (other) errors. I believe

3486: 4639:, as it is an appropriate target and is mentioned in the article itself. 4371: 4190:

The issue is of course that none of these can be flat-out presumed to be

3737: 3186: 3170: 2334:) would be the best choice. I do not know the reasons in favour of using 4942: 4263:

I'm seeking some guidance in working with more technical articles where

1946: 1834: 1720: 3166: 3074:

phoneme in General American. What it says is that General American has

2218: 2033: 1573: 1535: 4787:

Yeah it's an automated classification, and not a very accurate one. –

3165:

Here are the most important articles about writing, by my estimation:

1419:

discussion and comment accordingly re prospective next steps. Cheers.

443: 425: 4458:

Different importances for "Latin tense" and "Latin tense (semantics)"

3656: 3036:

International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and transcription delimiters

2210: 3889:

has consciously motivated the scholars I've read to use other terms:

1481:

Can you give examples of the sorts of phrases you are referring to?

1312:

Personally I feel that while the way the diagram presents relations

3078:

instead. The wording “in North America, when co-occurring with the

1641: 3190: 2704:

There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from

2621:

would be a poor choice. That is why I would prefer double slashes

930: 2886:, respectively (or, in North America, when co-occurring with the 1878:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File_talk:Voiceless_velar_nasal.wav

4841: 2484:

We might also make it more permissive, following the example of

1692:

There's a discussion regarding the IPA transcription of 'Vaush'

1647:, because the mainstream scholars advocate for monogenesis (see 3479:

Writing Systems and Their Use: An Overview of Grapholinguistics

4273:

Noam Chomsky coined the term "poverty of the stimulus" in 1980

3968: 3904: 3881:

Not much of the research I've read really gives prominence to

3579: 1916:

I'm actually working on fixing a bunch of them at the moment.

1890:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Voiceless_palatal_nasal.ogg

885: 685: 649: 508: 388: 380: 160: 4563:

submissions, and/or participating in deletion discussions. –

3295:

is taken by a much narrower field, much to my consternation.

4941: 3341:

Though, "study of writing systems" would presumably include

1945: 1882:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Voiceless_velar_trill.wav

1833: 1719: 1254:

Phonetics is primarily concerned with phones, not phonemes.

4635:

As the translator of that article, I have redirected it to

3088:

clarification about the phonemes involved in North America

2578:

is a convention well established. The distinction between

2032:

Single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate

1563:" may be a better descriptor. See the article on the song 2313:

Technically, I believe that double slashes (two slashes,

1729:

Talk:Sino-Xenic pronunciations#Requested move 14 May 2024

1715:

Talk:Sino-Xenic pronunciations#Requested move 14 May 2024

1669:

Could someone interested in linguistics please look into

1520:

Should Knowledge (XXG) use the term "imaginary language"?

4953:

that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

3234:). Sadly for me and my cause, If we go purely by ngrams 1941:

Talk:Blowing in from Chicago#Requested move 25 June 2024

1845:

that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

1731:

that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

3821:(grapho = writing system; logy = study) and it opposes 2748:

No strong opinion on /…/ or //…// but some reservations

1394:

WT:WikiProject Languages#Digital extinction of language

571: 243: 3481:. Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 369. De Gruyter Mouton. 3333:"Study of writing systems" seems reasonable. We don't 2791:

Exactly how many Templates would be affected by this?

3559:

Not to seem overly partisan, but I've just picked up

2859:

includes the sentence: "The phonemes involved in the

2140:

Template talk:IPAc-en#What's with the double slashes?

1843:

Talk:Indo-European ablaut#Requested move 16 June 2024

1829:

Talk:Indo-European ablaut#Requested move 16 June 2024

1497:

RM needs definitions for "proper noun" and "loanword'

1210:

will make their eyes glaze over? But we're okay with

4462:

In the Project Latin, there is an effort by me and @

471:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2102: 2063: 961:approaches should be more represented if possible. 948:

phone → phoneme → morpheme, word → phrase, sentence

4346:, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has 4170:Manuscripts and presentations by Blench as sources 3728:In line with Meletis & Dürscheid (2022), move 3718:the top-level article, incorporating content from 2488:, which allows for moderate regional variation. -- 4466:to improve two articles on Latin tenses: namely, 4436:WP:Articles for deletion/Glossa Psycholinguistics 4413:WP:Articles for deletion/Semantics and Pragmatics 4259:Sourcing claims in technical linguistics articles 3154:What should we call the study of writing systems? 4125:The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography 3736:(i.e. as the subfield studying emic units, like 3561:The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography 3162:, but I'll just drop a redirect there instead.) 2505:? (Perhaps an example or two could be helpful.) 1615:Merging (linguistic) Monogenesis and Polygenesis 1529:List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest 4275:. It's definitely verifiable via a citation to 3614:Good work! With these examples of use, I think 3477:Meletis, Dimitrios; Dürscheid, Christa (2022). 954:expressed as one being contained by the other? 927:Questions regarding ubiquitous six-ring diagram 405:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 172:and anything related to its purposes and tasks. 4546:User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Linguistics 4267:may not be readily available. On a topic like 2117: 2078: 3276: 3219:are our viable options for an article title. 2042:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Pronunciation 893:This page has archives. Sections older than 667: 8: 4580:For example, I have no idea what to do with 3759:Grapholinguistics § Derrida and grammatology 3229: 2666:MwGamera, the distinction between /.../ and 2036:. Our transcription system for English (cf. 1783:Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis 1202:Not entirely sure I follow. Are you saying, 2400: 2379: 2354: 2321: 2213:) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its 4951:Talk:Gyat#Requested move 12 September 2024 4937:Talk:Gyat#Requested move 12 September 2024 3158:(In a perfect world, I would post this on 2814:) for the technical and aesthetic reasons 2108: 2069: 1925: 674: 660: 539: 420: 4100: 2138:⫽. It was soon reverted after protest on 1696:which may be of intrest to some of yous. 4949:There is a requested move discussion at 4809:Hi all, I've been trying to improve the 4768:2019 Mangalore City Corporation election 1841:There is a requested move discussion at 1727:There is a requested move discussion at 4075: 3643:I likewise tentatively suggest that we 3015:, the text is merely talking about the 2591:just as appropriate in the first place. 1592:Content dispute over usage examples at 600: 551: 485:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics 422: 4805:Need help with Cajun English phonology 3740:, orthographic words, and punctuation) 3313:Then I would probably just stick with 3086:merger,” is misleading. I have made a 3012: 2958: 2703: 2502: 2209:Our transcription system for English ( 1980:Example numbering and crossreferencing 1688:Discussion of Pronunciation of 'vaush' 1546:2001:A62:1514:6A02:4CE8:A2CC:ACB2:2E38 984:considered a subdiscipline of syntax. 903:when more than 4 sections are present. 4699:-tag on it to save time and effort? – 4540:Reviewing new articles on linguistics 3070:page, I see no claim that there is a 2403: 2382: 2357: 2324: 2111: 2105: 2072: 2066: 1781:Please, could someone help to expand 7: 2406: 2397: 2385: 2376: 2360: 2351: 2327: 2318: 2114: 2075: 1206:is better for the learners, because 1161:? For a while, Stokoe tried to push 394: 392: 85: 4662:in the translating of the article. 2874:, are typically represented in the 411:It is of interest to the following 4979:NA-importance Linguistics articles 4974:Project-Class Linguistics articles 4844:, especially as it relates to the 3426:and its adjacent disciplines like 2802:⫽…⫽ would have several drawbacks ( 14: 4658:I also appear to have overlooked 4375:of coinage or being the first. // 3655:likewise reflecting the study of 1576:" would be the best term to use. 942:had a brief discussion regarding 897:may be automatically archived by 465:This page is within the scope of 190:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4984:WikiProject Linguistics articles 3345:, which "graphemics" would not. 3220: 690: 543: 512: 488:Template:WikiProject Linguistics 452: 442: 424: 393: 362: 185:Click here to start a new topic. 4151:. Bristol, CT: Equinox. p. 22. 2876:International Phonetic Alphabet 2466:a bit more assertive, perhaps. 2371:, exclamation marks or braces ( 1873:Voiceless alveolar tap and flap 1169:now for both, and so could we. 624:Systemic functional linguistics 4960:05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4930:02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4906:Good article reassessment for 3475:Also, it might help to peruse 3422:Isn’t this just at some level 1671:Talk:One Standard German Axiom 1396:would be appreciated. Thanks, 1388:Digital extinction of language 153: 1: 2761:alluded to something similar 2305:Support double slashes //…//. 2044:) does not use phonemes, but 1953:An editor has requested that 1357:17:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 1334:01:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 1149:01:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 1134:18:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1119:18:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1098:17:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1081:16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1064:15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1046:15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1030:15:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 1012:15:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 994:14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 978:14:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) 479:and see a list of open tasks. 182:Put new text under old text. 4553:new page reviewer permission 2799:obviously, but which others? 1465:WikiProject English Language 1463:For English phrases there's 4898:22:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 4884:20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 4858:17:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 4831:21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4799:12:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4782:22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4747:06:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4728:06:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4709:06:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4677:05:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4654:05:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4631:05:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4617:22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4596:08:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4575:08:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4532:20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 4518:18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 4059:20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4041:12:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 4023:12:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3998:12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3877:11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3854:05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3835:05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3813:04:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3779:04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 3160:WikiProject Writing systems 3148:18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 148: 5000: 4495:13:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 4453:16:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 4430:16:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 4147:Daniels, Peter T. (2017). 4005:Doesn't this suggest that 3549:12:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 2172:automatic audio generation 2166:Your statement is neither 1673:and give their opinion. -- 1610:23:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1586:17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 1554:17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 1515:20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1491:04:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1477:03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1458:03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1406:20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 952:Syntax–semantics interface 233: 4876: 4404:17:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4389:15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4366:13:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4332:14:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4315:13:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4298:13:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4277:Rules and Representations 4253:16:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 4223:11:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 4149:An Exploration of Writing 4036: 3993: 3849: 3808: 3774: 3706:12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 3701: 3677:16:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 3672: 3639:12:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 3609:08:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 3604: 3513:19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 3508: 3468:03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 3458:18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 3453: 3439:11:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 3410:01:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 3405: 3388:01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 3374:00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 3369: 3355:00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 3327:21:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 3309:18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 3304: 3272:14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 3252:08:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 3247: 3134:06:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) 3098:13:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC) 3062:00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) 3048:23:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 3029:20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 3007:17:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 2988:14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 2970:13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 2947:23:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 2933:02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 2919:01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 2828:23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 2739:08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2714:12:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2699:00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2640:) should not include the 2550:05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 2369:Diaphoneme#Representation 1975:05:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 1911:00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 1859:20:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1854: 1665:One Standard German Axiom 1565:Prisencolinensinainciusol 1424:23:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC) 1380:04:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 1292:13:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1278:10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1264:09:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1246:09:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1241: 1228:09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1198:09:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1193: 1179:09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1114: 1059: 1025: 973: 437: 419: 220:Be welcoming to newcomers 84: 4637:Dené–Caucasian languages 4508:don't worry about it. -- 4476:Latin tenses (semantics) 3278:Study of writing systems 3226:Disregarding site policy 2680:22:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2652:21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2605:20:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2528:20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2515:16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2496:14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2476:14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2439:13:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2421:12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2298:10:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2270:09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2248:08:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2229:07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2197:07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2184:04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2154:21:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2012:18:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC) 1932:16:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC) 1822:23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) 1799:10:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC) 1772:00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) 1743:Incorrect audio for IPA 1738:16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) 1708:07:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 1629:the article I translated 1503:Talk:Pied-Noir#Lowercase 142: 4269:poverty of the stimulus 3686:Draft:Grapholinguistics 3196:While the existence of 2812:DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR 2619:DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR 2344:DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR 2136:DOUBLE SOLIDUS OPERATOR 1959:Blowing In from Chicago 1955:Blowing in from Chicago 1863: 1785:(for more context, see 1683:05:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 1660:08:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 1411:Renaming Nonfinite verb 917:WikiProject Linguistics 869:Theoretical linguistics 629:Theoretical linguistics 520:WikiProject Linguistics 468:WikiProject Linguistics 170:WikiProject Linguistics 77:Theoretical Linguistics 24:WikiProject Linguistics 4946: 4836:Help with an etymology 4713:Ok. I'll do that now. 4102:10.1515/opli-2015-0026 3566:From its introduction: 3317:as the main one then. 3280: 3230: 2773:on one or two articles 2727:Support double slashes 2609:I agree with you that 2564:My primary reason for 2255:using double slashes. 1950: 1838: 1724: 1625:Linguistic polygenesis 1621:Linguistic monogenesis 1527:Currently the article 935: 900:Lowercase sigmabot III 634:Philosophy of language 215:avoid personal attacks 58:Philosophy of language 4945: 4582:Ainu-Minoan languages 4083:Neef, Martin (2015). 3487:10.1515/9783110757835 3236:it doesn't even chart 1949: 1837: 1723: 1627:could be merged into 1619:Hello. I think that 1434:WikiProjects, right? 934: 356:Auto-archiving period 4205:languages of Nigeria 3976:their handwriting.) 2839:Richard D'Oyly Carte 2634:Richard D'Oyly Carte 2452:Richard D'Oyly Carte 2280:we should use ⫽...⫽. 2087:Richard D'Oyly Carte 1687: 1645:give it undue weight 957:Also, I believe non- 525:a WikiProject Report 491:Linguistics articles 4846:Proto-Indo-European 3392:Neef defines it as 3291:Unfortunately not: 2995:in certain contexts 1963:the move discussion 1803: 1421:Kent Dominic·(talk) 609:Applied linguistics 534:on 21 January 2013. 48:Applied Linguistics 4947: 4935:Requested move at 3179:History of writing 2460:this archived talk 2092:What could we do? 1951: 1939:Requested move at 1839: 1827:Requested move at 1725: 1713:Requested move at 1417:Nonfinite verb RfD 936: 862:Phonology template 460:Linguistics portal 407:content assessment 226:dispute resolution 187: 120:Recognized content 4918:reassessment page 4797: 4732:Well, it's done. 4594: 4573: 4524:Daniel Couto Vale 4503:Daniel Couto Vale 4487:Daniel Couto Vale 4265:secondary sources 4157:978-1-78179-528-6 4133:978-1-108-48731-3 3983: 3982: 3943: 3942: 3869:Daniel Couto Vale 3827:Daniel Couto Vale 3793:Daniel Couto Vale 3749:Grapholinguistics 3716:Grapholinguistics 3623:grapholinguistics 3617:grapholinguistics 3594: 3593: 3541:Daniel Couto Vale 3537:study of sounding 3495:978-3-110-75777-4 3231:Schriftlinguistik 3216:Grapholinguistics 3068:Cot–caught merger 2857:Cot–caught merger 2779:User:Adumbrativus 2168:neutral nor brief 1984:I have started a 1934: 1392:Your feedback at 907: 906: 836: 835: 684: 683: 593:Unreferenced BLPs 564:Main project page 538: 537: 507: 506: 503: 502: 499: 498: 387: 386: 206:Assume good faith 183: 138: 137: 134: 133: 42: 41: 28:collaboration on 4991: 4958: 4882: 4880: 4874: 4870: 4791: 4779: 4774: 4745: 4726: 4698: 4692: 4687: 4675: 4652: 4614: 4609: 4588: 4567: 4506: 4450: 4445: 4427: 4422: 4363: 4358: 4329: 4324: 4308: 4274: 4241:Enggano language 4234: 4216: 4184:Kujarge language 4180:Chadic languages 4162: 4161: 4144: 4138: 4137: 4120: 4114: 4113: 4104: 4089:Open Linguistics 4080: 4038: 4033: 3995: 3990: 3969: 3905: 3851: 3846: 3810: 3805: 3776: 3771: 3703: 3698: 3674: 3669: 3606: 3601: 3580: 3533:study of writing 3510: 3505: 3498: 3455: 3450: 3407: 3402: 3395: 3371: 3366: 3306: 3301: 3288: 3249: 3244: 3233: 3224: 3183:Written language 3077: 3073: 2957: 2908: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2885: 2881: 2847:Help:IPA/English 2813: 2810: 2807: 2806: 2793:Template:IPAc-en 2643: 2631: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2614: 2613: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2536:⟩, as discussed 2535: 2412: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2402: 2399: 2391: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2353: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2320: 2165: 2137: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2057: 2051: 2038:Help:IPA/English 2028: 2009: 2004: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1856: 1851: 1755: 1754: 1750: 1735: 1705: 1700: 1483:Brusquedandelion 1450: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1326:Brusquedandelion 1243: 1238: 1195: 1190: 1141:Brusquedandelion 1116: 1111: 1095: 1090: 1078: 1073: 1061: 1056: 1043: 1038: 1027: 1022: 1009: 1004: 975: 970: 949: 922: 902: 886: 708: 707: 694: 686: 676: 669: 662: 650: 547: 540: 522:was featured in 516: 509: 493: 492: 489: 486: 483: 462: 457: 456: 446: 439: 438: 428: 421: 398: 397: 396: 389: 381: 367: 366: 357: 246: 161: 156: 151: 86: 20: 19: 16: 15: 4999: 4998: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4964: 4963: 4954: 4940: 4911: 4872: 4866: 4864: 4838: 4807: 4777: 4772: 4733: 4714: 4696: 4690: 4681: 4663: 4640: 4612: 4607: 4542: 4500: 4472:high importance 4460: 4448: 4443: 4439: 4425: 4420: 4416: 4361: 4356: 4327: 4322: 4306: 4261: 4228: 4214: 4172: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4158: 4146: 4145: 4141: 4134: 4122: 4121: 4117: 4082: 4081: 4077: 4029: 3986: 3842: 3801: 3767: 3761:(or equivalent) 3694: 3689: 3665: 3597: 3501: 3496: 3476: 3446: 3398: 3362: 3297: 3240: 3156: 2951: 2904: 2898: 2816:given last week 2811: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2750:and questions: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2566:weakly opposing 2503:more permissive 2396: 2393: 2375: 2372: 2350: 2347: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2317: 2314: 2207: 2159: 2135: 2101: 2098: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2049: 2022: 2019: 2007: 2002: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1982: 1944: 1869: 1847: 1832: 1809: 1804:GA Nomination: 1779: 1777:Help with draft 1756: 1752: 1748: 1746: 1745: 1733: 1718: 1703: 1698: 1690: 1667: 1617: 1597: 1522: 1499: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1431: 1415:Please see the 1413: 1390: 1234: 1204:externalization 1186: 1107: 1093: 1088: 1076: 1071: 1052: 1041: 1036: 1018: 1007: 1002: 966: 947: 929: 920: 911:Welcome to the 898: 887: 881: 699: 680: 651: 646: 490: 487: 484: 481: 480: 458: 451: 383: 382: 377: 354: 252: 251: 250: 249: 242: 238: 231: 201: 168:for discussing 158: 152: 147: 38: 35:Knowledge (XXG) 25: 12: 11: 5: 4997: 4995: 4987: 4986: 4981: 4976: 4966: 4965: 4939: 4933: 4914:Michael Savage 4910: 4908:Michael Savage 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4837: 4834: 4823:67.254.248.131 4806: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4735:🪐Kepler-1229b 4716:🪐Kepler-1229b 4665:🪐Kepler-1229b 4642:🪐Kepler-1229b 4599: 4598: 4541: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4480:low importance 4459: 4456: 4438: 4433: 4415: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4368: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4260: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4171: 4168: 4164: 4163: 4156: 4139: 4132: 4115: 4074: 4073: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 3981: 3980: 3977: 3973: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3909: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3890: 3864: 3860: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3751: 3741: 3726: 3688: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3646: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3567: 3564: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3494: 3473: 3444:ill-informed. 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3339: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3289: 3284: 3281: 3198:Writing system 3175:Writing system 3155: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3136: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3066:Regarding the 2990: 2975: 2851: 2850: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2800: 2797:Module:IPAc-en 2789: 2776: 2769: 2741: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2686: 2682: 2664: 2660: 2657: 2626: 2592: 2570: 2569: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2479: 2478: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2427: 2310: 2309: 2301: 2300: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2273: 2272: 2257:The opposition 2250: 2206: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2162:J. 'mach' wust 2132: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2018: 2015: 1986:new discussion 1981: 1978: 1943: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1930:comment added 1868: 1865:User:Eshaan011 1862: 1831: 1825: 1808: 1802: 1778: 1775: 1764:Stockhausenfan 1744: 1741: 1717: 1711: 1689: 1686: 1666: 1663: 1616: 1613: 1596: 1594:talk:Franglais 1590: 1589: 1588: 1569: 1568: 1521: 1518: 1498: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1479: 1430: 1427: 1412: 1409: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1367: 1336: 1321: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1139:"pragmatics". 1104: 1083: 997: 996: 928: 925: 905: 904: 892: 889: 888: 883: 879: 877: 874: 873: 872: 871: 866: 865: 864: 846: 838: 837: 834: 833: 827: 826: 821: 816: 810: 809: 804: 799: 793: 792: 787: 782: 776: 775: 770: 765: 759: 758: 753: 748: 742: 741: 736: 731: 725: 724: 719: 714: 701: 700: 695: 689: 682: 681: 679: 678: 671: 664: 656: 653: 652: 644: 642: 639: 638: 637: 636: 631: 626: 621: 616: 611: 603: 602: 598: 597: 596: 595: 590: 588:Article alerts 585: 580: 575: 558: 557: 554: 549: 548: 536: 535: 517: 505: 504: 501: 500: 497: 496: 494: 477:the discussion 464: 463: 447: 435: 434: 429: 417: 416: 410: 399: 385: 384: 375: 373: 372: 369: 368: 254: 253: 248: 247: 239: 234: 232: 230: 229: 222: 217: 208: 202: 200: 199: 188: 179: 178: 175: 174: 173: 159: 157: 154:Skip to bottom 149:Skip to bottom 145: 140: 136: 135: 132: 131: 129: 124: 122: 117: 115: 113:Article alerts 110: 108: 103: 101: 96: 94: 89: 82: 81: 80: 79: 74: 69: 62: 61: 60: 55: 50: 43: 40: 39: 32: 26: 23: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4996: 4985: 4982: 4980: 4977: 4975: 4972: 4971: 4969: 4962: 4961: 4957: 4956:Safari Scribe 4952: 4944: 4938: 4934: 4932: 4931: 4927: 4923: 4919: 4915: 4909: 4905: 4899: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4881: 4879: 4871: 4869: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4835: 4833: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4811:Cajun English 4804: 4800: 4795: 4790: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4780: 4775: 4769: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4695: 4685: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4666: 4661: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4638: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4615: 4610: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4597: 4592: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4571: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4551:You need the 4549: 4547: 4539: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4504: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4483: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4457: 4455: 4454: 4451: 4446: 4437: 4434: 4432: 4431: 4428: 4423: 4414: 4411: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4373: 4369: 4367: 4364: 4359: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4330: 4325: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4313: 4309: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4296: 4293: 4292: 4291:AviationFreak 4287: 4283: 4278: 4270: 4266: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4232: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4221: 4217: 4211: 4206: 4202: 4197: 4193: 4188: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4169: 4159: 4154: 4150: 4143: 4140: 4135: 4130: 4126: 4119: 4116: 4111: 4108: 4103: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4079: 4076: 4072: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4039: 4034: 4032: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3991: 3989: 3974: 3970: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3910: 3906: 3891: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3852: 3847: 3845: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3811: 3806: 3804: 3798: 3797:ThaesOfereode 3794: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3777: 3772: 3770: 3765: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3699: 3697: 3687: 3684: 3678: 3675: 3670: 3668: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3644: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3619: 3618: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3607: 3602: 3600: 3585: 3581: 3568: 3565: 3562: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3514: 3511: 3506: 3504: 3497: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3456: 3451: 3449: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3411: 3408: 3403: 3401: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3372: 3367: 3365: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319:ThaesOfereode 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3307: 3302: 3300: 3294: 3290: 3285: 3282: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264:ThaesOfereode 3261: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3250: 3245: 3243: 3237: 3232: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3217: 3212: 3211: 3206: 3205: 3199: 3194: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3161: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3099: 3096: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2991: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2968: 2965: 2960: 2955: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2896: 2894: 2890: 2877: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2777: 2774: 2770: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2752: 2751: 2749: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2705: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2683: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2639: 2635: 2627: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2593: 2590: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2390: 2370: 2365: 2332: 2312: 2311: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2204: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2163: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2129: 2126: 2122: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2083: 2054: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2027:|lang|style}} 2026: 2016: 2014: 2013: 2010: 2005: 1987: 1979: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1948: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1929: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1852: 1850: 1844: 1836: 1830: 1826: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1814:ThaesOfereode 1807: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1776: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1751: 1742: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1730: 1722: 1716: 1712: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1701: 1695: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1664: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1640:Galician and 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1614: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1539: 1537: 1532: 1530: 1525: 1519: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1428: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1387: 1381: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1373:AviationFreak 1368: 1364: 1363:really useful 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1337: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1247: 1244: 1239: 1237: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1191: 1189: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1157:Why not just 1156: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1112: 1110: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1091: 1084: 1082: 1079: 1074: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1062: 1057: 1055: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1039: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1023: 1021: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1010: 1005: 999: 998: 995: 991: 987: 982: 981: 980: 979: 976: 971: 969: 962: 960: 955: 953: 945: 941: 933: 926: 924: 918: 914: 909: 901: 896: 891: 890: 876: 875: 870: 867: 863: 860: 859: 858: 854: 850: 847: 845: 842: 841: 840: 839: 832: 829: 828: 825: 822: 820: 817: 815: 812: 811: 808: 805: 803: 800: 798: 795: 794: 791: 788: 786: 783: 781: 778: 777: 774: 771: 769: 766: 764: 761: 760: 757: 754: 752: 749: 747: 744: 743: 740: 737: 735: 732: 730: 727: 726: 723: 720: 718: 715: 713: 710: 709: 706: 703: 702: 698: 693: 688: 687: 677: 672: 670: 665: 663: 658: 657: 655: 654: 641: 640: 635: 632: 630: 627: 625: 622: 620: 617: 615: 612: 610: 607: 606: 605: 604: 599: 594: 591: 589: 586: 584: 581: 579: 576: 573: 569: 565: 562: 561: 560: 559: 556: 550: 546: 542: 541: 533: 532: 527: 526: 521: 518: 515: 511: 510: 495: 478: 474: 470: 469: 461: 455: 450: 448: 445: 441: 440: 436: 433: 430: 427: 423: 418: 414: 408: 404: 400: 391: 390: 371: 370: 365: 361: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 262: 260: 256: 255: 245: 241: 240: 237: 227: 223: 221: 218: 216: 212: 209: 207: 204: 203: 197: 193: 192:Learn to edit 189: 186: 181: 180: 177: 176: 171: 167: 163: 162: 155: 150: 146: 144: 141: 139: 130: 128: 125: 123: 121: 118: 116: 114: 111: 109: 107: 104: 102: 100: 97: 95: 93: 90: 88: 87: 83: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 63: 59: 56: 54: 51: 49: 46: 45: 44: 37: 36: 31: 22: 21: 18: 17: 4948: 4912: 4877: 4867: 4839: 4818: 4808: 4765: 4701:Austronesier 4684:Kepler-1229b 4660:WP:PROFRINGE 4623:Austronesier 4550: 4543: 4484: 4479: 4471: 4468:Latin tenses 4461: 4440: 4417: 4396:Austronesier 4340:this article 4289: 4276: 4262: 4245:Austronesier 4201:WP:EXPERTSPS 4195: 4189: 4176:Roger Blench 4173: 4148: 4142: 4124: 4118: 4092: 4088: 4078: 4070: 4030: 3987: 3984: 3886: 3882: 3843: 3822: 3818: 3802: 3768: 3755:Grammatology 3734:Graphematics 3724:Grammatology 3695: 3690: 3666: 3663:for phones. 3622: 3615: 3598: 3595: 3560: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3502: 3478: 3447: 3428:palaeography 3399: 3363: 3334: 3298: 3277: 3241: 3225: 3214: 3210:Grammatology 3208: 3202: 3195: 3164: 3157: 3126:Adumbrativus 3121: 3083: 3079: 3016: 2892: 2888: 2867:merger, the 2864: 2860: 2834: 2786: 2766: 2747: 2746:(solidus) – 2743: 2731:Double sharp 2726: 2690: 2667: 2596: 2588: 2565: 2448:Weak support 2447: 2304: 2277: 2253:Weak support 2252: 2235: 2208: 2133: 2091: 2031: 2021: 2020: 1983: 1957:be moved to 1952: 1926:— Preceding 1903:62.73.69.121 1897: 1893: 1870: 1848: 1840: 1810: 1780: 1757: 1726: 1691: 1668: 1618: 1598: 1543: 1540: 1533: 1526: 1523: 1500: 1432: 1414: 1391: 1371: 1362: 1340: 1317: 1313: 1235: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1187: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1126:Austronesier 1108: 1053: 1019: 967: 963: 959:phonocentric 956: 944:this diagram 937: 916: 912: 910: 908: 894: 696: 583:New articles 567: 529: 524: 519: 476: 466: 413:WikiProjects 403:project page 402: 359: 257: 164:This is the 98: 27: 4773:Botterweg14 4608:Botterweg14 4557:WP:PERM/NPR 4444:Botterweg14 4421:Botterweg14 4357:Botterweg14 4323:Botterweg14 3785:Kwamikagami 3527:, opposing 3343:paleography 2872:back vowels 2820:1RightSider 2759:User:Nardog 2215:diaphonemic 2046:diaphonemes 2003:Botterweg14 1806:Weise's law 1699:A Socialist 1578:Slamforeman 1089:Botterweg14 1072:Botterweg14 1037:Botterweg14 1003:Botterweg14 923:). Thanks! 849:Phonetics 1 601:Task forces 555:Linguistics 553:WikiProject 482:Linguistics 473:linguistics 432:Linguistics 143:Skip to TOC 30:linguistics 4968:Categories 4890:ForksForks 4850:ForksForks 4743:contribs🪐 4724:contribs🪐 4673:contribs🪐 4650:contribs🪐 4510:Un assiolo 4212:weight. -- 4071:References 4007:Graphemics 3887:graphology 3883:graphology 3819:Graphology 3745:Graphemics 3730:Graphemics 3720:Graphemics 3653:graphetics 3649:Graphemics 3525:graphology 3465:Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 3436:Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 3315:Graphemics 3293:graphology 3287:graphology 3260:Graphemics 3204:Graphemics 3140:Un assiolo 3040:Un assiolo 2999:Un assiolo 2954:Un assiolo 2939:Un assiolo 2911:Un assiolo 2744:Oppose ⫽…⫽ 2486:MOS:ENGVAR 2464:MOS:RHOTIC 1867:'s uploads 1704:Trans Girl 1631:, like in 1602:P Aculeius 1366:principle. 1216:morphology 1212:pragmatics 831:Archive 22 824:Archive 21 819:Archive 20 814:Archive 19 807:Archive 18 802:Archive 17 797:Archive 16 790:Archive 15 785:Archive 14 780:Archive 13 773:Archive 12 768:Archive 11 763:Archive 10 578:Assessment 106:Assessment 99:Discussion 4377:Replayful 4307:Trɔpʏliʊm 4231:Tropylium 4215:Trɔpʏliʊm 4110:2300-9969 4047:Replayful 4011:Replayful 3823:Phonology 3789:Warrenmck 3783:Pinging @ 3753:Redirect 3743:Redirect 3738:graphemes 3661:phonetics 3645:generally 3627:Replayful 3529:phonology 3424:epigraphy 2843:Melbourne 2668:something 2638:Melbourne 2456:Melbourne 2346:instead ( 2240:Sol505000 1918:Eshaan011 1637:Catalan, 1634:Spanish, 1561:gibberish 1505:. Thanks 1345:Replayful 1103:Excellent 913:talk page 844:Etymology 756:Archive 9 751:Archive 8 746:Archive 7 739:Archive 6 734:Archive 5 729:Archive 4 722:Archive 3 717:Archive 2 712:Archive 1 619:Phonetics 614:Etymology 228:if needed 211:Be polite 166:talk page 92:Main page 67:Phonetics 53:Etymology 4868:Remsense 4385:contribs 4372:pro-drop 4282:WP:SYNTH 4210:WP:UNDUE 4055:contribs 4031:Remsense 4019:contribs 3988:Remsense 3844:Remsense 3803:Remsense 3769:Remsense 3696:Remsense 3667:Remsense 3635:contribs 3599:Remsense 3503:Remsense 3448:Remsense 3400:Remsense 3364:Remsense 3299:Remsense 3242:Remsense 3187:Grapheme 3171:Literacy 2783:(8 July) 2763:(7 July) 2691:MwGamera 2597:MwGamera 2219:phonemic 2034:phonemes 1994:\label{} 1849:Remsense 1507:Elinruby 1501:It's at 1398:Mathglot 1353:contribs 1270:Mathglot 1236:Remsense 1220:Mathglot 1188:Remsense 1171:Mathglot 1109:Remsense 1054:Remsense 1020:Remsense 968:Remsense 938:Me and @ 895:180 days 697:Archives 531:Signpost 360:180 days 259:Archives 236:Shortcut 196:get help 4464:Kanjuzi 4237:WPUNDUE 3795:, and @ 3380:— kwami 3347:— kwami 3338:jargon. 3167:Writing 3054:— kwami 3021:Wolfdog 3017:symbols 2980:— kwami 2754:IPAc-EN 2672:— kwami 2507:Wolfdog 2468:Wolfdog 2458:? (See 2431:— kwami 2290:— kwami 2278:ideally 2236:support 2058:, e.g. 2053:IPAc-en 1928:undated 1734:ASUKITE 1675:Rießler 1574:artlang 1536:Conlang 1429:Phrases 1314:between 1208:phoneme 1167:phoneme 1163:chireme 1159:phoneme 986:Phlsph7 940:Phlsph7 528:in the 244:WT:LING 4778:(talk) 4613:(talk) 4561:WP:AFC 4474:) and 4449:(talk) 4426:(talk) 4362:(talk) 4328:(talk) 3657:glyphs 3122:oppose 3095:🙈🙉🙊 3084:bother 3080:father 2967:🙈🙉🙊 2925:Nardog 2895:merger 2893:bother 2889:father 2865:caught 2849:" etc. 2835:Oppose 2805:U+2AFD 2711:🙈🙉🙊 2649:🙈🙉🙊 2612:U+2AFD 2542:Nardog 2525:🙈🙉🙊 2493:🙈🙉🙊 2418:🙈🙉🙊 2337:U+2AFD 2262:Nardog 2226:🙈🙉🙊 2211:H:IPAE 2194:🙈🙉🙊 2176:Nardog 2151:🙈🙉🙊 2008:(talk) 1998:\ref{} 1996:, and 1967:Graham 1791:Pcg111 1747:": --> 1652:Pcg111 1469:Nardog 1318:within 1284:Nardog 1256:Nardog 1094:(talk) 1077:(talk) 1042:(talk) 1008:(talk) 409:scale. 127:Portal 4922:Z1720 4819:still 4694:db-g7 4286:WP:OR 4192:WP:RS 4095:(1). 3714:Make 3659:à la 3432:Kwami 3191:Glyph 2897:, as 2781:said 2663:this. 2630://r// 2623://…// 2584:⫽...⫽ 2580:/.../ 2576:/.../ 1446:stuff 705:Index 401:This 264:Index 224:Seek 4926:talk 4894:talk 4854:talk 4842:Land 4827:talk 4815:here 4794:talk 4739:talk 4720:talk 4705:talk 4669:talk 4646:talk 4627:talk 4591:talk 4584:. – 4570:talk 4528:talk 4514:talk 4491:talk 4400:talk 4381:talk 4352:this 4348:this 4344:this 4312:blah 4249:talk 4220:blah 4153:ISBN 4129:ISBN 4107:ISSN 4051:talk 4015:talk 3873:talk 3831:talk 3722:and 3631:talk 3545:talk 3535:and 3491:ISBN 3384:talk 3351:talk 3335:need 3323:talk 3268:talk 3207:and 3144:talk 3130:talk 3092:mach 3090:. -- 3058:talk 3044:talk 3025:talk 3003:talk 2984:talk 2964:mach 2943:talk 2929:talk 2915:talk 2903:and 2882:and 2824:talk 2735:talk 2708:mach 2695:talk 2676:talk 2646:mach 2601:talk 2582:and 2546:talk 2538:here 2522:mach 2511:talk 2490:mach 2472:talk 2435:talk 2415:mach 2294:talk 2266:talk 2244:talk 2223:mach 2191:mach 2180:talk 2148:mach 2146:. -- 1971:talk 1922:talk 1907:talk 1818:talk 1795:talk 1787:this 1768:talk 1760:here 1749:edit 1694:here 1679:talk 1656:talk 1623:and 1606:talk 1582:talk 1550:talk 1511:talk 1487:talk 1473:talk 1454:talk 1402:talk 1349:talk 1330:talk 1288:talk 1274:talk 1260:talk 1224:talk 1214:and 1184:is. 1175:talk 1145:talk 1130:talk 990:talk 921:~~~~ 915:for 568:talk 213:and 4789:Joe 4586:Joe 4565:Joe 4284:or 4196:not 4097:doi 3859:it. 3791:, @ 3787:, @ 3483:doi 3076:/ɑ/ 3072:/ɒ/ 2906:/ɔ/ 2900:/ɑ/ 2884:/ɔ/ 2880:/ɒ/ 2878:as 2869:low 2861:cot 2841:or 2642:/r/ 2636:or 2589:are 2454:or 2426:/." 2025:rfc 1990:\ex 1924:) 1898:can 1894:all 1789:)? 1440:can 72:SFL 33:in 4970:: 4928:) 4896:) 4873:‥ 4856:) 4829:) 4741:| 4737:| 4722:| 4718:| 4707:) 4697:}} 4691:{{ 4671:| 4667:| 4648:| 4644:| 4629:) 4530:) 4516:) 4493:) 4402:) 4387:) 4383:| 4310:• 4295:💬 4251:) 4218:• 4105:. 4091:. 4087:. 4057:) 4053:| 4021:) 4017:| 3979:” 3972:“ 3939:” 3908:“ 3875:) 3833:) 3757:→ 3747:→ 3732:⇒ 3637:) 3633:| 3590:” 3583:“ 3547:) 3489:. 3386:) 3353:) 3325:) 3270:) 3193:. 3189:, 3185:. 3181:, 3177:, 3173:, 3169:, 3146:) 3132:) 3124:. 3060:) 3046:) 3027:) 3005:) 2986:) 2962:-- 2945:) 2931:) 2917:) 2826:) 2785:, 2765:, 2737:) 2697:) 2689:– 2678:) 2603:) 2595:– 2548:) 2520:-- 2513:) 2474:) 2437:) 2392:, 2331:// 2316:// 2296:) 2268:) 2246:) 2234:I 2189:-- 2182:) 2121:// 2118:ər 2100:// 2089:. 2079:ər 2056:}} 2050:{{ 2040:, 2023:{{ 1992:, 1973:) 1965:. 1909:) 1888:, 1884:, 1880:, 1820:) 1797:) 1770:) 1762:. 1681:) 1658:) 1608:) 1584:) 1552:) 1538:. 1513:) 1489:) 1475:) 1456:) 1443:do 1404:) 1377:💬 1355:) 1351:| 1343:// 1332:) 1290:) 1276:) 1262:) 1226:) 1177:) 1147:) 1132:) 992:) 855:, 851:, 566:• 358:: 352:22 350:, 348:21 346:, 344:20 342:, 340:19 338:, 336:18 334:, 332:17 330:, 328:16 326:, 324:15 322:, 320:14 318:, 316:13 314:, 312:12 310:, 308:11 306:, 304:10 302:, 298:, 294:, 290:, 286:, 282:, 278:, 274:, 270:, 266:, 194:; 4924:( 4892:( 4878:论 4852:( 4825:( 4796:) 4792:( 4703:( 4686:: 4682:@ 4625:( 4593:) 4589:( 4572:) 4568:( 4526:( 4512:( 4505:: 4501:@ 4489:( 4478:( 4470:( 4398:( 4379:( 4247:( 4233:: 4229:@ 4160:. 4136:. 4112:. 4099:: 4093:1 4049:( 4037:诉 4013:( 3994:诉 3871:( 3850:诉 3829:( 3809:诉 3775:诉 3702:诉 3673:诉 3629:( 3605:诉 3543:( 3509:诉 3485:: 3454:诉 3406:诉 3382:( 3370:诉 3349:( 3321:( 3305:诉 3266:( 3248:诉 3142:( 3128:( 3082:– 3056:( 3042:( 3023:( 3001:( 2982:( 2956:: 2952:@ 2941:( 2927:( 2913:( 2891:– 2863:– 2822:( 2809:⫽ 2795:/ 2775:. 2733:( 2693:( 2674:( 2625:. 2616:⫽ 2599:( 2544:( 2534:ʳ 2509:( 2470:( 2433:( 2410:} 2407:t 2404:s 2401:ɛ 2398:t 2395:{ 2389:! 2386:t 2383:s 2380:ɛ 2377:t 2374:! 2364:⫽ 2361:t 2358:s 2355:ɛ 2352:t 2349:⫽ 2341:⫽ 2328:t 2325:s 2322:ɛ 2319:t 2292:( 2264:( 2242:( 2178:( 2164:: 2160:@ 2124:. 2115:t 2112:s 2109:ʊ 2106:w 2103:ˈ 2082:/ 2076:t 2073:s 2070:ʊ 2067:w 2064:ˈ 2061:/ 1969:( 1920:( 1905:( 1876:( 1855:诉 1816:( 1793:( 1766:( 1753:] 1677:( 1654:( 1604:( 1580:( 1567:. 1548:( 1509:( 1485:( 1471:( 1452:( 1449:! 1437:I 1400:( 1347:( 1328:( 1286:( 1272:( 1258:( 1242:诉 1222:( 1194:诉 1173:( 1143:( 1128:( 1115:诉 1060:诉 1026:诉 988:( 974:诉 857:3 853:2 675:e 668:t 661:v 574:) 572:+ 570:( 415:: 300:9 296:8 292:7 288:6 284:5 280:4 276:3 272:2 268:1 261:: 198:.

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