Talk:Has Hlai grammar

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Uanfala: I disagree on the sounds of the language belonging here. Grammar and phonology are two different subjects; thus, including one in an article on the other leads to a lack of focus (after all, this is not a general overview of all aspects of Has Hlai). Also, this might be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I don't see charts of sounds in similar articles such as Chinese grammar or German grammar. (For future editors, the content I'm referring to is at Special:PermaLink/953202517#Introduction.) Glades12 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from any theoretical questions about whether phonology is part of grammar, on a practical level any grammar of a language (as a work: monograph or encyclopedia article) would contain a section on the phonology. At the very least, the information in such a section is necessary in making use of the rest of the text – when a reader encounters one of the many examples in Hlas Hai, they would want to know how they're pronounced. When one day an article is created at Has Hlai language, I'll have no objections for this section to be moved there. – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for your first claim? Glades12 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That published grammars typically have phonology sections? – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I take it back. It was a dumb question I asked because I couldn't think of any better argument. Consider yourself the winner of the short-lived debate. Glades12 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't occurred to me to think in terms of winning and losing. If you have any further concerns with the present set-up, we can talk them over. – Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to keep the Chinese glosses? I am sure they were extremely helpful when the editor created the text, but they are unnecessary here, and might even mislead an uninformed reader (who happems to stumble across this page) to think that they are transliterations of Hlai in Chinese characters. So whoever starts to trim, reformat and reorganize the text, could delete the Chinese glosses in that process. What do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. This isn't the Chinese Wikipedia, after all. Glades12 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They could only be useful for cross-checking the English glosses, but I trust the page creator here. I later cases of doubt, we can still check in the hist. So I'll start to do some reformatting, and delete the Chinese glosses. –Austronesier (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just come here to complain about this exact thing! I'd make a narrower prescription, though. Whether or not the Chinese glosses are cut entirely, they shouldn't appear as the first line of the interlinear. It's a very robust convention that the first line is for the object language. If the Chinese was near the bottom there'd be little risk of the confusion Austronesier speaks of. 4pq1injbok (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4pq1injbok: I have changed

to

This looks better now, I think. –Austronesier (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! 4pq1injbok (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BengkelBerkah05, for taking the time to edit this very long article. A trim is definitely needed here, but edits like this seem to be throwing a bit too much away. For example, the information about the passive voice, assuming it's linguistically sound, is definitely relevant. Also, having one or two example sentences for each grammatical phenomenon described is definitely helpful, so at least some of those examples sentences should definitely stay. – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]