Talk:Eurolinguistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I've reverted to my original heading, since the suggested new heading doesn't make any sense. -- Sinatra 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Duplicate material
Most of this article is duplicate material from European languages. Is there a reason for this? Any reason not to merge or delete it? ~ Veledan • Talk 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I copied the text from here into the entry European languages. The reason is: here the results of the topic, namely Eurolinguistic studies, are presented, while under European languages the material can be seen as a description of the topic. --Sinatra 18:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Focus
Is this a real discipline? It sounds quite vague to me? 惑乱 分からん 11:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is a real discipline. If you enter the term into a search engine, it'll give you many hits. -Sinatra 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I would not consider 774 hits (Google search for "Eurolinguistics"), some of them referring to Wikipedia or Wikipedia-derived content, to be that many. Eurolinguistics definitely exists, but I would hesitate to call it an academic discipline. To me, it rather seems to be a small community of linguists who call themselves "Eurolinguists". But research on European languages is also done by many, many other people, who do not call themselves Eurolinguists. --zeno 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Esperanto
Is Esperanto really being proposed as an official EU language? It sounds mainly as a proposal from romantic Esperantists... 惑乱 分からん 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, such proposals exist. Cf. the works by Hilmar Frank, now quoted in the article. -Sinatra 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A merge with Languages of Europe?
Hello! I think this article should be merged with the Languages of Europe article. They handle very similar topics. Moreover, a lot of sections are almost identical in content between them. Maybe the list of languages (in that article) could be put into a separate article, e.g. List of languages of Europe or List of European languages. What do you think? --Antonielly 13:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have commented on this suggestions already above and don't see any new arguments for merging them. Again: this article here gives the results of the discipline, namely Eurolinguistic studies, while under European languages the material can be seen as a description of the topic. -Sinatra 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thinking again, the section on "common features of European languages" could indeed be put under Languages of Europe with a separate entry List of European languages, but I fear that they only accept linguistic descriptions on Europe in its geographical sense, if you have a look at the talk page there. --Sinatra 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] dubious?
Definition of Europe: Why should the minor Greek and a major Latin heritage in European languages be dubious? What I find more difficult to reconstruct is the common history of the arts, education and formation. What do you mean by this, Sinatra? And do you think that inhabitants of soviet republics were not Europeans? I'm referring to societal pluralism - nonmember on 03 Feb 07
- By common history of arts I refer to the developments that are transnationally shared (though in various degrees) with respect to literature, architecture, music, painting and the like. As regards education and formation, this refers to the development and spread of the universities and their curricula as well as the philosophical ideas such as scholaticism and the Enlightenment. In this sense, inhabitants of soviet republics are not part of the (West-)European civilization. -Sinatra 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
