Timeline for What is the benefit to Linguistics SE of banning script or language identification questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 1:04 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | @Janus If Linear A is deciphered it won't be announced first on this site ;) I think there's a difference between a linguist deciphering a script, with all of the work, hypotheses, logic and arguments that would take, and a person recognising by sight what a language is. By all means lets have the first category of question, but the second category do not belong. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 20:44 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | « But identifying random scraps of written language does not really have anything to do with linguistics. » — So you wouldn't consider the longstanding philological work of, say, deciphering Linear B or the Rosetta Stone counts as linguistic work? I would definitely call philology an aspect of linguistics. | |
| May 16, 2016 at 22:53 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | @Araucaria Language description is of course on-topic, but simply identifying languages is not language description. Orthography is on-topic, but I see no reason for identifying an orthography to be on-topic. | |
| May 15, 2016 at 7:44 | comment | added | Araucaria - him | There's loads of reuse value if the answers are good (an impossibility if the question has been swiftly closed). Describing languages, including their writing systems, is an inherently linguistic thing to do, it seems to me. Or am I missing something? What fields might it fall under? Well you seem to have already mentioned computational linguistics, but there's also anthropological linguistics, forensic linguistics, relevance theory and so on and so forth. There are, of course linguistic texts about writing systems. | |
| May 15, 2016 at 0:14 | history | answered | curiousdanniiMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |