Talk:Modern language

[Untitled]

As for the proposal to merge this with Modern Languages, at the moment they're on two different topics. This article is on modern languages as a linguistic concept, the other is about modern languages as an academic discipline. Still, the two should probably be merged, if only because people looking for information on one of these topics might otherwise wind up at the wrong page. I suggest that they merged here, to Modern language, because Wikipedia style is to have lowercase and singular form. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, (on the same day), I have suggested a merge from Modern language to Modern Languages. Though this is not you're way of doing, (you would prefer it to be the other way around). Thanks, -- Kilo-Lima 17:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For the merge

1. I think we should merge to modern language as standard WP style. The current "linguistics" article is mostly about the use as an academic categorization, anyway. — brighterorange (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge

Abstain

Comment(s)

Merged into Modern Languages

I've merged into Modern Languages since it had more content to work with. If we prefer the singular form for Manual of Style reasons, then let's get an admin to delete the redirect here (on Modern Language) and we can do a move. Jamie 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern language <- Modern Languages move

This move should probably have been done with the "move" function (get a admin to delete the redirect first), rather doing a copy-and-paste over the redirect... in order to preserve the article history. Jamie 05:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that's what I get for thinking when half asleep. Reverted my changes and put up an afd on the redirect page to get this started. Thanks! Thaagenson 12:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

...and I've reverted the afd. Not only does afd not deal with redirects, which usually go to WP:RFD, but rfd itself sends requests for deletion for this reason to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please list it there. (Furthermore, Modern language has history that was merged into Modern languages, so it can't simply be deleted.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is the situation when reviewing this article. Modern language and Modern Languages used to be separate articles that were merged into one at Modern Languages. Due to naming convention reasons, these was an incorrect merge and should have been merged to Modern language. My initial thoughts was that it should just be moved through copy paste to Modern language and the redirect be added to Modern Languages. Please respond with any other thoughts or suggestions. Thanks! Thaagenson 16:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Copy-paste moves are almost never the right thing to do. (Though you make a good case for one here.) Do please list it at WP:RM; the admins who maintain that page deal with this sort of situation all the time, and can help you figure out the correct solution. —Cryptic (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Another note, the only history actually at Modern Languages appears to be just the merge history. There was also some history at Modern languages that has since been deleted and this page just links to Modern Languages

We should be having this discussion on Talk:Modern language or Talk:Modern Languages, not here. I'm the one who did the merge, and I chose the merge direction incorrectly. (I was looking at the content of the two articles, rather than on the naming convention. ) Go ahead and propose the merge as per WP:RM (including starting a discussion in the article talk page), and I'll happily support the move. Jamie 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Languages most studied in schools?

I don't understand this section. Most studied where? I cannot believe that Dutch or (modern) Greek would ever appear in any 'most studied' list and certainly not in the Top 12 which we have here. Some clarification, rectification and sourcing would be appreciated.

Incidentally, I have altered the reference to KS4 in the UK section: the government decided two years ago that pupils could give up MFL at the end of KS3, with the result that entries for GCSE in languages plummetted this year. Emeraude 12:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I have added a tag inviting citation for this content. Abtract 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Artificial and natural languages

The following sentence was removed from the section about auxilliary languages:

Notice that although these are artificial languages, not natural languages, they are still modern i.e. living languages.

I think this is a useful addition, in that it clarifies any doubts the reader may have, and adds useful terminology and links. Could the reasons for its removal be explained? BrainyBabe 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Latin is in Use - also for day to day talk! <- what a criterion!?

As long as texts are written in Latin, as long as books are translated into languages and as long as those who love Latin itself as a vivid, beautiful and effective language(potentially every Latin learner - if there was not the stupid pure use of the analytic method, that is not suitable to all of us, in Latin classes!) still keep talking in voice and writing - How can you call it dead? Old Greek might be near to extinction - but it, too, can be brought to life again! Though they are or won't be, respectively, exactly the same languages as in their beginnings as "fixed languages" - but who cares?

And, as for the learning(not cramming) method suitable to reduced time and for real "Spracherwerb", there is -among others- an effective possibility is at hand, that needs only a tiny but crucial addition: the "Birkenbihl-method for language learning" (‡ cramming in vocabulary and grammar rules without understanding) (and is for free!) Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern language and living language

1. The lead begins by saying

A modern language is any human language that is currently in use.

But e.g. Latin is still in use, by the Catholic Church. Is it really a "modern language"? The problem here is that the lead sentence's wording "in use" is too vague, and needs to be clarified by being made more specific.

2. Living language redirects here, but the term does not appear in the article. Is it a synonym of "modern language"? According to dead language, the latter is one with no native speakers, so presumably a living language is one with native speakers. E.g. Latin does not fall into that category. So if Latin is a modern language because it is in use, then "living language" is not synonymous with "modern language". In any event, since it redirects here, "living language" needs to be mentioned in boldface and defined in the lead.. Loraof (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added "living language" to the lead. Its relation to "modern language" still needs to be explained, and "currently in use" still needs to be clarified. Loraof (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)