Talk:Madang languages

Ross 2005 or 1996?

This article cites Ross (2005) as the source for the reclassification of Madang languages. However, this material is nowhere to be found in Ross (2005), but instead is from an unpublished (1996) manuscript. I am curious as to why this material is wrongly attributed to (2005), and why the 1996 manuscript isn't cited.128.208.76.85 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am dubious about the correctness of incorporating changes from an unpublished manuscript by Ross, principally (a) the merger of the Tibor and Omosan languages; and (b) the reclassification of Musar to the Kumilan group. My understanding was that Wikipedia policy is against citation of unpublished material. The incorporation of these suggestions in the article surely counts as original research. MarcusCole12 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from Amaimon, which I don't see offhand, this is the classification used in Ross (ms, 2000) and repeated in Pawley, Ross, & Osmand (2005). Perhaps that's where the mixup occurred, both being dated 2005. Anyway, that's not what "original research" means.

Ah, there it is. Amaimon is listed in Table 31 on the Croisille pronouns in Pawley et al (2005), between Numugen and Mabuso. Numugen–Mabuso is not listed as a group in that table (though Tibor–Omosan is), and Amaimon is not listed in the summary of Ross (2000), which does include Numugen–Mabuso. Table 31 also includes Musar under Kumil. So apart from the position of Amaimon, which is a separate branch that may or may not be part of Numugen–Mabuso, this is all supported by Pawley et al. 2005. [The discussion of Numugen–Mabuso makes no mention of Amaimon, so I'm leaving it outside.] — kwami (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't aware of the existence of Pawley, Ross & Osmand (2005); I've seen the unpublished Ross ms, as well as Ross (2005), which didn't mention these changes. MarcusCole12 (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)