Talk:Linguistics/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson
(Dive in!)
imported>Joshua Tauberer
(Other Things)
Line 20: Line 20:
:For a non-expert bystander it reads fairly well [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 05:45, 23 January 2007 (CST)
:For a non-expert bystander it reads fairly well [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 05:45, 23 January 2007 (CST)
::Thanks - though I've only edited the first few paragraphs. There really is a lot to do here, so anyone with an interest, dive in. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:09, 23 January 2007 (CST)
::Thanks - though I've only edited the first few paragraphs. There really is a lot to do here, so anyone with an interest, dive in. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:09, 23 January 2007 (CST)
== Other Things ==
I know a few linguistics who might take issue with the statement that phonetics "complement linguistics rather than form a central component."  I strongly urge putting phonetics out at the level of the other theoretical levels (as I did in my edit).  --[[User:Joshua Tauberer|Joshua Tauberer]] 19:39, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Revision as of 19:39, 3 February 2007

Suggestions for editing this page

Hi, all. I'm one of the authors of the Linguistics Workgroup. As not much is happening here at the moment I'm going to try to get to work on this page and hope others join in!

Some suggestions:

  • Join the workgroup if you haven't already. At the moment we have no registered editors (I'm applying) and only six registered authors. To do this put Category:Linguistics Authors|Yourlastastname, Yourfirstname in [ ] at the bottom of your user page (or the equivalent editor tag if you are an editor).
  • Citizendium's first 'editor approved' page is Biology. Take a look and compare it to the Wikipedia version [1]. The CZ one is much easier to read: it doesn't get bogged down in technicalities, nor prioritise less-than-useful information (such as the origin of the word 'biology').
  • I think we should prioritise this page before moving on to others, except where your area of expertise focuses on another article. By default, let's try to work on this one.
  • The page should focus simply on what linguistics is, without going into details of e.g. the history of the field (that can be put on the History of linguistics page). So it should focus on identifying the core topics - syntax, phonology, morphology, (linguistic) semantics, language acquisition, and the difference between theoretical and applied. This should be fairly concise.

I'm planning to manually refresh the page with the latest Wikipedia version (which I've also been editing, but developing the view that it's a lost cause), then make the page 'live' before editing it.

Good luck!

John Stephenson 21:23, 15 December 2006 (CST)

First edits

I've now refreshed the page with the 16th December Wikipedia version and started hacking away at it. The old article is under my user page here if you want to examine it and revert things. Also, the page is now 'live'. John Stephenson 21:38, 15 December 2006 (CST)

For a non-expert bystander it reads fairly well David Tribe 05:45, 23 January 2007 (CST)
Thanks - though I've only edited the first few paragraphs. There really is a lot to do here, so anyone with an interest, dive in. John Stephenson 19:09, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Other Things

I know a few linguistics who might take issue with the statement that phonetics "complement linguistics rather than form a central component." I strongly urge putting phonetics out at the level of the other theoretical levels (as I did in my edit). --Joshua Tauberer 19:39, 3 February 2007 (CST)