Talk:Conservative and innovative language/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkleiman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons

One of the reasons for conservatism is isolation - the more isolated a language is, the more it retains and even creates more and more complex forms, since 1) there is no external push to reduce them, and 2) because more complex forms are often more precise and detailed in what you want to say. (e.g. PIE, which appears to have been isolated for a long time during the last ice age; or, for a more modern-day example - Sardinian)

The mixing of societies often leads to a) simplifiction and b) innovation which, although they are quite different from each other, go hand-in-hand, since a) the need for understanding between different language groups leads to the loss of the more difficult forms; and the likely difference in pronunciation patterns between different language groups will lead to the retention mainly of the most similar forms, which can also have a knock-on effect on morphology/syntax/grammar, while b) they often take elements from each other and influence one another (e.g. English, creoles; and how French and Latin have affected English).

This stuff – obviously, with the appropriate links and references – would be a good next step in expanding this article. Peace! BigSteve (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Linguistic conservatism as most preferred. To be clear, while there is general agreement below to rename this article, there is only a very rough consensus for the title chosen. In accord with the RM closing instructions, "If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately,..." hopefully to a specific choice of title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that Conservative (language) be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

The discussion has been closed.

Links: current log • target log

Conservative (language) → ? – The title is currently an adjective, which is generally proscribed per WP:NOUN. I WP:BOLDly moved it to Linguistic conservatism but was reverted by Nardog, so I'm bring it here for further discussion. I have several proposals:

The first four are all abstract nouns, which are often preferred over specific nouns when both essentially deal with the same encyclopedic concept. They diverge on two axes: one is "conservatism" vs. "conservativeness"; conservatism is a far more common word and should be used if it means the right thing (which Nardog is contesting). For the other part, a WP:NATURAL disambiguator (putting "linguistic" in front) is preferred if its prevalence is greater than or within an order of magnitude of the plain, ambiguous form; otherwise parenthetical disambiguation is fine.

The last two are less aesthetically pleasing but benefit from not having to determine the noun form of "conservative". The first of the two is a short, simple solution, while the latter is a common way of covering antonymous concepts (e.g. Centum and satem languages). The downside is that "conservative" can refer to things which are not languages, as detailed in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: see general agreement to rename; however, see no agreement yet on what to name it. Members of WikiProject Linguistics have been notified of this discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the candidates are satisfactory, but I would choose Conservativeness (linguistics) if I had to, Conservative and innovative languages being the second choice. As I said in the summary of the revert, "conservatism" does not seem to carry any currency in terms of the article's subject, probably because -ism usually implies an ideology, attitude or effort while the present subject is about differences in the rate of natural language change and variation (the effort is known as linguistic purism). Linguistic conservativeness is indeed preferable with respect to WP:NATURAL, but I think it has to be an established term, which AFAIK isn't, unlike purism.

I also considered Conservative and innovative languages even before King of Hearts' bold move, because nothing is conservative without there being something else that is innovative and thus the article inevitably discusses both, but the problem is that these adjectives are often used to describe dialects rather than distinct languages. It is arguable that every dialect is also a language, but I don't think such a definition of a language is a popular one especially when describing conservative and innovative dialects/languages.

I tried to find an established term in textbooks on socio- and historical linguistics, but to no avail. Hopefully someone more well-versed in these areas of study can enlighten us. Nardog (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism is used, but only rarely. The third edition of Trask's Historical Linguistics (2015) has by my count two instances of conservatism, zero instances of conservativeness, and around 15-20 uses of conservative with usage, language, variety, pronunciation etc. (not including e.g. conservative speakers or conservatives, which I judged to be somewhat different, and of which there are a further 10-15 examples). American English Dialects and Variation (2015) has one instance of linguistic conservatism (plus one social conservatism and one cultural conservatism), zero conservativeness, and nine uses of conservative with form, speech, etc.

If we must use a noun phrase, I would lean toward "Conservative and innovative language" (no plural), since it is not only languages as such but also elements of language that may be conservative. Arguably, though, this is a case for Ignore All Rules. Cnilep (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative and innovative language is a great idea. I'd support that. Nardog (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support linguistic conservatism. As the article makes clear, a language can be both conservative and innovative in different respects. Srnec (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Srnec: Sorry, what is the connection between the fact that a language can be both conservative and innovative in different respects and your supporting Linguistic conservatism? Nardog (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I oppose "conservative and innovative languages" because it is not necessarily the case that we can define a language as either conservative or innovative. This is a phenomenon or tendency (which could be called either conservatism or innovativeness) that can be exhibited by languages in varying degrees in different aspects. There may indeed be (generally) conservative languages and (generally) innovative languages, but the topic is broader than that. Srnec (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Srnec: What do you think of Conservative and innovative language? I think it perfectly addresses your concern, which I share. Nardog (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it is superior to linguistic conservatism. It also seems a little ambiguous and difficult to parse. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the current title is the most natural and recognizable. If WP:NOUN is the only problem, just apply WP:IAR. Iamnotabunny (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree, except that "conservative" cannot be without there also being "innovative", and hence the article discusses both. If WP:NOUN wasn't a problem after all, I would move it to Conservative and innovative (or perhaps Innovative and conservative). Nardog (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't think we want that to be the standard. Just imagine having to title every article "Flammability and non-flammability", "Hardness and softness", etc. Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Conservative" and "innovative" are used as antonyms in many areas, so I think anything without a disambiguator is a bad idea. The option I favor most is still my initial solution of Linguistic conservatism, a term which is heavily attested in Google Scholar results. But if it is to remain an adjective, I'd prefer "linguistics" as a disambiguator, i.e. Conservative (linguistics). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I'm repeating myself, but my preferences are #1 Conservative (language) because it is the status quo and not obviously wrong (except that it's not a noun phrase), or #2 Conservative and innovative language because it encompasses languages as such and also elements of language, any of which can be conservative or innovative. I agree that Conservative and innovative full-stop is too ambiguous. As an aside, I don't see why (linguistics) is preferable to (language) as a disambiguator; I'm not sure if that's a failure of reading comprehension or a failure of imagination on my part. Cnilep (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support linguistic conservatism. Like the policy consistency and attestation in Google Scholar. -- Daviddwd (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conservatism (linguistics). Because "conservatism" is usually only spoken of as a standalone term in linguistics, so adding the disambiguative "(linguistics)" would be more in line with its use. SUM1 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SUM1: if you could get behind linguistic conservatism, then we could almost call a consensus here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Germanic /ð/

According to this linked list, the three Germanic languages said here to keep /ð/ aren't the only ones. Norwegian, Swedish, Elfdalian and Austrian German use it in at least some dialects. It is worth looking into the history of /ð/ to see which are retaining it in some places, and which have evolved this sound again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_dental_fricative BrennodAloisi (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: The Elfdalian page specifically mentions it as a retention there:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfdalian BrennodAloisi (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be referring to both ð and θ being retained? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]