Talk:Relexification

Middle English

The whole section on Middle English should be removed from this. The term relexification is so massively restricted to pidgin and creole studies that one linguist making a generally ignored claim about Middle English should be considered a Fringe Theory. Indeed, if a language borrows one word from another language and replaces a native word with it, it can be legitimately considered to be "partially relexified" under this definition. The whole issue of relexification is reserved for pidgin and creole studies to explain massive grammatical similarity between creoles, but lexical dissimilarity. It is irrelevant for Middle English studies. "Relexification" is NOT a synonym for "borrowing". (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree. Good refs, though. They should be in the intro. kwami (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We could even give Middle English as an example of large-scale borrowing which is not relexification. There is, however, the question of Old English, but maybe that's best left out. kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are cases of languages who have not only borrowed massively, but also replaced much of their native lexicon by borrowings (Albanian and Armenian come to mind), and English has done that, too. It has not only borrowed, even though the replacement of native lexicon was centuries later than the onset of borrowing. It is also true that English is not as extreme a case as Albanian or Armenian, and even there, quite a lot of basic vocabulary is left that is actually native. But the penetration and embedding of borrowed vocabulary is doubtless quite deep, and does concern basic vocabulary, too. There are probably many more cases (Welsh, Basque?), of languages that just narrowly escaped being entirely replaced. None of those cases, however, comes quite to the dimensions found in true mixed languages or pidgins/creols. So whether the term relexification is appropriate is a matter of taste. Perhaps partial relexification is a more acceptable description. Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To the Anon IP editor

Your proposed edit does two things. First, you have eliminated an important cross reference in the Language Creation section (bad decision). Second, you overemphasize that relexification is used in cases other than descriptions of pidgins and creoles. Your first edit hurts the article. Your second edit is unnecessary since the word "primarily" implies that there are a minority of other cases as well. If you don't think that the cross-reference is necessary then discuss it here first. (Taivo (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

The use of the "main article" template is undue, since like you yourself stated, it is not limited to these three language forms. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the word "relexification" is rarely, if ever, used in a context outside pidgin/creole/mixed language studies. I've never seen it used in a historical linguistics text outside of this area except in one quote about Albanian. It isn't given undue weight because that is where the majority of the weight lies. If you look at the list of references for this article, you will see that the great majority of them are creole studies and two of the three dictionaries cited in footnote one specifically restrict the definition of "relexification" to pidgin and creole studies. (Taivo (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

You have not discussed a single one of your deletions here. The cross references are entirely proper. (Taivo (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

I discussed them in the edit summary. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An "edit summary" is not discussion. It is simply assertion. What are your references to justify the removal of a cross-reference? If you can show that Pidgin and Creole studies are not the main (if not the only) place where relexification is a true and verifiable process, then you will have a reasonable argument for WP:UNDUE. But until you have presented evidence, you are just vandalizing the article. (Taivo (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

1. It is undue because it puts too much emphasis on certain examples, which are not the only examples
2. It is not even correct useage of the "main article" template, as "mixed language" does not equal the "full article" of "Language Creation"
3. The articles which it links to are given instantly in the text anyway.

Also, I remind you of WP:NPA, as an edit summary calling my edit "vandalism" when it is purely not, is in full breach of the policy, and you know it. Your next such statement will be reported - consider this a warning.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that your next revert will breach WP:3RR - mine however will not, as you are one revert ahead of me, so be extra careful. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are serious editor, then register yourself so that people might take you more seriously. As it is, you have offered not a single verifiable REFERENCE as to why you should be deleting cross references in this article. Since you are willfully deleting information without justifying that information in a valid discussion with references, that can be considered vandalism. (Taivo (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Now you are just plain trolling - make comment on content, not contributor. Are you now suggesting IP address are of less worth than registered users? A third policy breach shall we add to the list then? Whether I make an account or not is of no concern of yours, and I expect to be treated in the same manner as you would with a registered account.

And reference? Are you being serious? So we now include references for why not to include something? Oh, I have a reference saying that France uses the Euro, so it must automatically go in an article about Computers - simply because a reference exists for it? Counter my points above please - do not disguard them.

Wait, is this another accusation of me being a vandal? I advise you to be careful in your response. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Relexification is nearly always used of Creoles, Pidgins, and Mixed Languages. Show me a reference otherwise. Your "undue" argument hinges on whether or not you can actually produce enough references to verifiable linguistic sources that use the term "relexification" outside of Creole/Pidgin/Mixed Language studies to show that undue weight has been given. It's not a question of your say-so. Two of the three linguistic dictionaries that are cited in the article define relexification in terms of Creole/Pidgin/Mixed language studies. You are the one who must prove undue with REFERENCES.

2) The cross reference you are deleting is in a subsection that entirely focuses on Creoles, Pidgins, and Mixed Language formation. Give me a reason why a section-level reference is inappropriate in that context. ("Because I don't like so many references" is not a reason.) If the template has not been correctly used, then fix it, don't delete it.

3) Your "points" have nothing to do with the content or quality of the article. You have said zero about content and you have offered zero proof.

My credentials as a historical linguist are on clear display on my User page. While many anonymous IPs make good comments and offer constructive improvements to articles, there are others that are vandals and simply slash and burn their way through Wikipedia. So far, how constructive have your edits and comments been? (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Your "linguistic credentials" are irrelevant - anyone can easily lie about what they have on their user page. Like I said, I expect the same treatment as you would give anyone else.

Right, you're still not getting it, let's put it simpler for you ey?

A correct use of the template would be for instance, if in an article about Serbia, there was a subsection titled "Economy of Serbia", and there was also a separate article of this. The "main article" template could be used in the subsection to link to... incidentally, the "main article"!

The same is not true here. The main article of a section title'd "New language formation" does not by any definition meet use of the main article template to link to "Creole language". That is the matter in hand.

Additionally - not that this matter, since the incorrect useage of the template voids it anyway - your statement of 2/3 discussing them in relation to creoles, only works to reinforce my description of it as WP:UNDUE; a third is hardly reaching WP:FRINGE poing here, and the other two don't desribe it as equalling creoles anyway; they describe it in relation to it. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, lying on my User page. Look me up at Utah State University's faculty page. If you want a link, ask.

So you can quote Wikipedia policy. Yawn. You still haven't given any reasons why a cross reference is a bad thing. You cite WP:UNDUE, but you have no references to back it up. I completely don't understand your last sentence. It is such a convoluted compilation of subordinate and conjoined clauses that I can't make any sense of the pronominal reference. "your statement of 2/3 discussing them" (who's "them"?) doesn't make any sense. And how do references "reinforce a description of it as undue" (I assume that references is what you are referring to). Uh, "fringe"? Where did that come from? "Poing"? "Other two" what? (Taivo (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Again, please respond to the point in hand - that it is not a correct use of the template, as explained overtly above (or should I not bother trying to explain myself and request page protection?). 78.144.204.247 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So, it sounds like you have absolutely nothing positive to add to the article. Your only concern is that the template was improperly used. (Taivo (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

And removing inappropriate templates is obviously contributing nothing to the article? It's becoming annoying you won't back down because of your own pride. You obviously do not have any vested interest in developing it, or rational conversation, but instead would prefer to comment on contributor, tell me to make an account otherwise I won't be taken seriously, and accuse me of being a vandal, when it is you who all along has been playing deaf. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually had more respect for you when you were trying to argue WP:UNDUE. At least that is a discussion about content. And just so you know I can read Wikipedia policy, too, perhaps you should look at WP:WL and WP:GAME. (Taivo (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

And as far as your own actions are concerned, you started this whole thing off with talking about WP:UNDUE and editing in some weasel words in the lead paragraph. If your only gripe was that the template was improperly used, then why didn't you start out with "The template is not properly used. It has nothing to do with content, but only form"? Before you actually came down to succinctly stating what you wanted changed, you wandered through WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Perhaps you should analyze your own discussion style before weighing in on a condemnation of my contributions (which were content-based because that's what you gave the impression was important to you). (Taivo (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Relexification/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Importance: Relexification is one of the fondamental mechanisms of linguistic change; Class scale: The article is relatively complete.

Last edited at 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)