Talk:Rambani dialect
Latest comment: 2 years ago by RuudVanClerk in topic Claims of 4 sources
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Claims of 4 sources
edit@Uanfala: In relation to your edit summary, can you please advise where these 4 sources are? Thanks.RuudVanClerk (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kaul, Grierson and Bailey (mentioned only in the text) and and the entry in Glottolog (in the infobox). I don't believe I've seen anything else published about this language variety. If you genuinely believe more sources should be added, then you're welcome to suggest them here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kaul and the Glottolog entry, sure. That’s two. The sources mentioned in the Kaul text are iffy and these generally aren’t classified as separate sources themselves. You can add the original works as references if you feel this is appropriate. Thanks. RuudVanClerk (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, they're not iffy: Grierson and Bailey are the two main sources, each with a solid description of the grammar. It's actually Kaul that's less relevant, because he only repeats the information present there and where he does add something new (say, his conclusion about the variety now being endangered) it's at most educated guesswork. – Uanfala (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, if Grierson and Bailey are the two main sources then they need to actually be referenced in the article. RuudVanClerk (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, they're not iffy: Grierson and Bailey are the two main sources, each with a solid description of the grammar. It's actually Kaul that's less relevant, because he only repeats the information present there and where he does add something new (say, his conclusion about the variety now being endangered) it's at most educated guesswork. – Uanfala (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kaul and the Glottolog entry, sure. That’s two. The sources mentioned in the Kaul text are iffy and these generally aren’t classified as separate sources themselves. You can add the original works as references if you feel this is appropriate. Thanks. RuudVanClerk (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)