Talk:Macrofamily

Title

I think the title should be super family because that would be easier to find thought?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think navigation is reasonably well covered now. Superfamily is a disambig page, on which the relevant entry, Superfamily (linguistics), is a redirect to here. --Pi zero (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Trask is the only source to mention size

Trask stands alone in describing this in terms of size:

• P.H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics (2007, Oxford) uses "macrofamily" solely for a proposed unit that combines widely accepted language families with no reference to size.
• Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, Utah) uses "macrofamily" solely for proposed and controversial units with no reference to size.
• David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics (2003, Blackwell) does not use "macrofamily", but uses "phylum" and "macrophylum" in the same sense--proposed units with deep time depth above the level of established families with no reference to size.
• Terry Crowley, An Introduction to Historical Linguistics (1997, Oxford) does not use "macrofamily", but uses "stock" and "phylum" in the same sense--proposed units with deep time depth above the level of established families with no reference to size. Indeed, he follows Stephen A. Wurm in using "stock" for grouping language isolates as well as for grouping families.

So if you look at actual linguistic dictionaries, you find Trask is the only source that uses "macrofamily" for size and all the others use it only for "proposed controversial grouping above the level of family". --Taivo (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"stock" and "phylum" are both taxonomic terms respectively synonym of "family" and "macro-family". I don't see where's the problem.Talskubilos (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No. You must follow the sources. Except for a single source--Trask--the linguistic literature unequivocally uses "macrofamily" for a proposed and controversial grouping above the level of a family. The majority view must take precedence. Indeed, I have found not a single source other than your mention of Trask [I don't own a copy of that work] that even hints at size as a criterion. You cannot use your own logic here (see WP:SYN and WP:OR), you must be guided by the sources (see WP:RS). --Taivo (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have a copy of a book, you can still try a Google search. As I said above, "macro-family" stands etymologically for 'big family', and this can't be refuted. Talskubilos (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You have one source for that meaning and I have multiple sources that do not include it--actual books in my hand. You should try it sometime. --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia's criteria might be, but IMHO quality is prioritary to quantity. Here's a review of Campbell-Mixco's book where the autor states: "This glossary is more accessible and concise than the only other similar resource in English - Trask’s (2000) more comprehensive and advanced dictionary - although the two are better thought of as having different audiences and objectives in mind." So you can see Trask's definition of "macro-family" is more comprehensive than the one of Campbell-Mixco's. In a sense, this is like putting off Webster's for Oxford, Cambridge or Longman Advanced Learner's dictionaries. This is why I've put a NPOV banner. Talskubilos (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are very befuddled. A majority of published references use "macro-family" as referring to postulated families and only Trask mentions size at all. Usage is primary and linguists, including linguists who specialize in putative macrofamilies, make the distinction between proposed and demonstrated by calling demonstrated families "language families" and proposed families (no matter what the size) "macrofamilies". Austronesian and Niger-Congo have more languages than Nostratic or Amerind, but the former are never called "macrofamilies" while the later are. Trask is mistaken about size. Period. Linguistic usage overwhelmingly uses "macrofamily" in the sense of proposed and often controversial genetic relationship--a proposed family of proven familes, so to speak. Also, do not change the publisher of Campbell & Mixco--it is published by University of Utah Press. Unless you own a copy and are looking at it, then stop your absolutely incorrect revision. --Taivo (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Taivo is right - macro-family doesn't mean a big family it means a proposed family that covers several previously established language families - rather to a difference in size it refers to a difference in epistemic status. Stock and Phylum are not welldefined concepts at all and are usually used interchangeably with macro family. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As a further confirmation, since Talskubilos prefers Google to actual books, I googled "austronesian macrofamily" here. The first page of results included only one example of "Austronesian macrofamily"--in an article written by a biologist, not a linguist. All the other references clearly differentiate between Austronesian, as a demonstrated "language family" (one of the largest, if not actually the largest), and Austric or Austro-Tai, as an undemonstrated "macrofamily". There is no mention of size here, only of time depth and level of demonstration and acceptance by linguists. --Taivo (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I then went to Google Books and searched for "austronesian macrofamily" here. On the first page of results, not a single source calls Austronesian a "macrofamily" and all of them make a distinction between demonstrated "language family" and undemonstrated "macrofamily". There is not a single, solitary reference to size as a measurement of macrofamily status, even though if size were a measurement, then Austronesian would certainly qualify since roughly 15-20% (depending on source) of the world's languages belong to the Austronesian family. --Taivo (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Campbell & Mixco book, here is the Amazon Books entry--University of Utah Press. Since both Campbell and Mixco were professors at the University of Utah at the time it was published, it's not too surprising that it was the University of Utah Press that published the work. Edinburgh University Press only reprinted it, so the publisher should be listed solely as University of Utah Press. --Taivo (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As a further confirmation, since Talskubilos prefers Google to actual books, I meant a search on Googgle Books, which sometimes allow for partial views of printed books such as Trask's. As this is larger and more comprehensive than Campbell-Mixco's, I take it as more reliable, so in absence of a consensus, I put NPOV banner again. Talskubilos (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talskubilos - it is just not current linguistic usage. This isn't a pov issue it is about defining according to the primary sense as used in a majority of sources. Trask does not take precedent over the more general usage as demonstrated in multiple sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But Trask isn't alone in using this term. For example, Russian School's scholars refer to Afro-Asiatic/Afrasian as a "macro-family". To be fair, you SHOULD quote ALL the proposed macro-families in the article, either the majority of linguists call them so or not. Talskubilos (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Talskubilos. The usage of "macro-family" as "a large family" is simply not demonstrated in the sources--either in Google or in Google Books (as I cited above). Trask is alone in this usage. Trask is not the king of historical linguistics, indeed, if you are going to go on "authority", then Campbell is more authoritative as a historical linguist. Trask is good, but Campbell is more widely known and published. But that's not the issue. I've actually cited two different dictionaries of linguistics--Campbell & Mixco and Matthews, but you ignore the Matthews dictionary in your responses. The usage of "macro-family" on the Russian site for Afro-Asiatic is actually not based on size anyway, so it is a counterargument to your claim that size is important. Austronesian is a larger language family than Afro-Asiatic by three or four times, yet Austronesian is not called a "macrofamily". The reason that "Afro-Asiatic" is sometimes labelled a macrofamily is that it is considered to be a "family of families" of deep time depth. It has nothing to do with its size. But even Afro-Asiatic is only rarely labelled a "macrofamily", unlike Nostratic or Austric, so it should not be listed here as a typical example of a macrofamily (I don't know where you got the idea that there is a "complete list" of macrofamilies here--there isn't). But we have conclusively demonstrated that "macrofamily" refers primarily to proposed, usually controversial, families of deep time depth. There is no evidence that size matters to any degree in defining what constitutes a "macrofamily". --Taivo (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Campbell-Mixco's has to be read carefully

I've corrected the text according to what Campbell-Mixco's actually says. The tricky part is that, in order to get things right, one has to read 3 different entries: "macro-family", "phylum" and "distant genetical relationship". It turns out the second one gives a more accurate definition and also less biased to Campbell's own view, who regards such large scale grouping hypothesis as unproved and so gives negative connotations ("speculative, and often controversial") to "macro-family", a term which he substitutes by "distant genetic relationship" in the book. Despite so, one can still find the term "macro-family" in a few entries (e.g. "Cushitic is ususally classified as a branch of the Afroasiatic macro-family"), probably written by another author. Inconsistences like these ones are usual in coauthored books. Talskubilos (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)