Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weise's law/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2024 [1].

Weise's law

edit
Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to RoySmith and Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this here -- will pop in at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in for a review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: Courtesy ping. Just wanted to see if you were still interested in reviewing this since it's been a few weeks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?
  • Rephrased.
  • "several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.
  • Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog! Looking forward to your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".
  • Good catch. Fixed.
  • "Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".
  • Fixed.
  • "However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?
  • In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.
In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
Fixed.
  • Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?
  • I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)
  • "The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
  • I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?
Yep, that's fixed it.
  • And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.
  • Ibid. above
Likewise.
  • "linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?
  • Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.
  • "Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.
  • Done.
  • "See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?
  • I like "further discussion". Fixed.
  • "Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?
  • Clarified.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog. Thanks for your feedback. I've responded accordingly. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you for the comments and support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

edit

Before starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:

  • the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;
  • If I'm reading you correctly, discussion on this is found in the "Relative chronology" section, where I've written about the two competing views: Kortlandt (Proto-Indo-Iranian only) and Kloekhorst (late Proto-Indo-European, excluding the Anatolian languages).
  • Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;
  • Done.
  • I think this has been fixed with what I wrote for the above suggestion, since I talk about how PIE is hypothetical and no record of it exists. I go over that in the representational conventions in "Terminology", so I think all the bases are covered.
I have responded accordingly. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or need to do anything else. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Gentle nudge to see if you're still planning on reviewing/giving support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentiong in the first section that an asterisk (*) indicates a non-documented/constructed term or sound.
  • Hard to think of a non-awkward way to jam this in, but I think I picked an okay spot. Let me know what you think.
  • Although almost no attested language in the Indo-European language family distinguishes between these three sets of consonants,... Could the negative statement be replaced by a positive one? "Although only one/two/... atteste languages - X, Y, and Z - distinguishes ..."
  • I doubt that we know the exact borders of PIE's Urheimat. Furthermore, alternative location exists (such as Anatolia and Armenia) even in mainstream literature. We should mention who proposes this location. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair enough. I did a source check for the image and have changed the caption to reflect that the the darker green reflects the estimated range of the Yamnaya culture specifically and added some contextual comments about the steppe hypothesis with appropriate sources. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. Thank you for completing it. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. I appreciate your time and your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

I am struggling to find too much to say, though I know I have already stuck my oar in a great deal on this article. I hope the below is useful nonetheless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for your help on this article. I've fixed most of what you've pointed out and responded to the rest accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. Thank you for your tireless effort making this article more accessible and better quality. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest point throughout -- I still think we could do more to help non-linguists understand what is going on here, particularly in the lead. I admit that I was never particularly good at philology in undergrad, but I've got pretty good training in it and find causes the depalatalization of the palatovelar consonants *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ in certain contexts. In short, when *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ are followed by *r, they depalatalize and thereby merge with the plain velars *k *g *gʰ, respectively, unless the *r is followed by *i or the palatalized form is restored by analogy pretty tough to parse. I also found the penultimate paragraph of the "Overview" section a little tricky.
  • I've been thinking about how to de-technicalize the lede for some time now. I think I've figured it out, but let me know if I'm still off the mark. As for the penultimate paragraph in "Overview", I've also rewritten part of that. Same goes.
  • I wonder whether "merge with" is likely to be confusing for most readers -- I'm not sure many non-linguists will parse it as "become [indistinguishable from]". A bit later, with One such example of this is Sanskrit अज्र ájra 'field, plain', which is derived from h₂éǵ-ro- 'field, pasturage'; in this example, the reflex of the palatalized consonant has been restored: can we say what it would be if Weise's law were followed, or what's "wrong" with ájra under it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had to do a little source-digging and ended up clearing up a few things I thought could be further de-technicalized, but I added the expected reflex for ájra. As for the "merge with" issue, I asked a non-linguist whether that term was clear and they confirmed your concerns, so some thoughts: With respect to changing it to "become indistinguishable from" as an alternative, I'm concerned this may lead to the belief that they are still somehow distinct in some meaningful way; linguists do distinguish surface representation from deep structure. In other words, something may not be distinguishable in discourse, but may still be distinguishable in some other way. What I've done instead – since I cannot think of an sufficiently broad term that is correct in the linguistic sense – is link Phonological change#Merger. I think this will adequately address my technical concern about accurate terminology and the general concern about accessibility to non-linguists. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think this has been adequately addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that I think would help with this is a demonstration -- could we perhaps do a table with three columns -- PIE, [example centum language -- Latin?] and [example satem language -- Sanskrit?], with a few words that show the distinction written out in easily-parsed transcription?
  • I'm not opposed to that, but I'm not sure what should be demonstrated with a table. There is a table on the Centum and satem languages page, which demonstrates the difference, which I suppose I could add with real examples (instead of just descriptions) to show the difference between the two fairly generally. The problem is, in the cases in which Weise's law applies, the difference between centum and satem languages can't be differentiated as a result of that depalatalization; Weise's law basically causes the "pseudo-centumization" of certain palatal sounds. I'm also concerned that using attested languages like Latin and Sanskrit may be unhelpful to the layperson because they will invariably show forms that are the result of later sound changes and may further confuse someone unfamiliar with historical linguistics.
  • Similarly, some of the (entirely correct) technical notation could be written in plain language without sacrificing much: instead of (e.g., Sanskrit: श्रवस् śravas 'fame' < *ḱleu-es-; ह्राद् hrād 'to resound, to make a noise' < *ǵʰleh₃d-), try for example, the Sanskrit word for 'fame', śravas, derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ḱleu-es.
  • Fair enough. Fixed.
  • The law is named after German linguist Oskar Weise: a false title: this and similar are better as "the German linguist..."
  • Done.
  • According to Alwin Kloekhorst, Weise's original article has "been largely forgotten by the scholarly world",: is the tense quite right here, given that Kloekhorst was trying to bring it back to scholarly attention? Might be more accurate to do was largely forgotten as a paraphrase. I think we do need to put a date on K's work here.
  • I'm not gonna push back too hard here, but I'd say it's still kind of forgotten. I think Kloekhorst did a good job reminding others that the law existed and sort of established the boundaries better than Weise did, but sound laws like Grimm's, Szemerényi's, and Verner's are commonly mentioned in the field's literature, whereas even narrow etymologies of Sanskrit don't mention it at all. Still, I'm willing to stand down on this if you think Kloekhorst successfully brought it back to scholarly attention, but I'm skeptical. That all said, I've dated the quote as requested.
  • Note how the tongue's point of contact or constriction moves increasingly forward, from the palate to just behind the teeth. the MoS discourages editorial asides like "note how...", and takes the position that everything we write is notable. Better simply to start the sentence at The tongue's...
  • Fixed.
  • Another tough bit: since the metathesis of late Proto-Indo-European *u and *r occurs after both the divergence of Anatolian (e.g., Hittite: 𒍝𒈠𒀭𒆳 zama(n)kur 'beard' < *smóḱ-ur) and any depalatalization under Weise's law.
  • Good call. I revamped this paragraph entirely.
  • there is positive evidence that this kind of depalatalization never occurred in Armenian (սրունք srunkʿ 'leg' < *ḱrūs-ni-; մերձ merj 'near, close to' < *méǵʰsri).: as above, I think it might help to write out the bit in brackets in layman's terms.
  • Yep. Done.
  • Albanian and Armenian have a controversial placement in centum–satem taxonomy. See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for further discussion: this currently seems a bit disjointed, since we then talk about this in the last paragraph of the article.
  • Yeah, I originally put this in here to get in front of any head-scratching coming from someone with linguistics knowledge, especially since I originally wrote an extremely technical article (i.e., one in which a reader would only have gotten that far with some background in PIE linguistics). I think the discussion on the page is better (and better sourced), so would it be better to just {{slink}} the "Relative chronology" section of this article instead? Or should I just remove it outright?
  • I think it mostly works: While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages, Kloekhorst considers Albanian and Armenian to be satem languages: is it worth sticking in the middle "it does affect Albanian and Armenian; most scholars categorise these as centum languages, but Kloekhorst..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the scholarship is that "Albanian and Armenian are satem languages" comprises a plurality – but not a majority – of opinions on the topic. I'd say "Albanian and Armenian exist outside the dichotomy/exist on a spectrum within the dichotomy" is a close second (usually in "inoffensive" contexts, such as intros to the field and papers in which Albanian and Armenian do not constitute a significant portion of the data). And I found this to remain the case as I developed the article, though scholarship is changing somewhat on what exactly the dichotomy is as a whole. That's why I simply put "have a controversial placement" rather than implying any sort of majority opinion because I don't think any polls or reviews of the literature would support an outright majority. And if they did, it might be outside the scope of this article; Weise's law affects these two languages, so for the purposes of most of scholarship on the law, they are categorized as such and that's really all the reader needs to know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. It's fixed, but let me know if the verbiage is still off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that footnotes always end in a full stop (the citation template adds one automatically, as does sfn; harvnb doesn't) -- see note 3 for instance.
  • Good catch. I think I got all of them now.

SnowFire

edit

Nice work.

I know that having some commentary or suggestions is common to sort of "prove" that the reviewer actually read the article, but I'm a little gunshy of making such on a highly technical topic, and when UC above has already massaged the prose pretty well. I did read Kloekhorst's paper for comparison and it seems summarized and fairly represented, but usual disclaimer goes that I'm not a linguist here, and some of the summations probably require someone who really knows the field for a 100% confidence review.

The main concern is the one that both Gog & UC alluded to above: that this topic is going to be a rough read for "casual" readers who aren't familiar with linguistics and the details of PIE theories. I agree with UC that some sort of table of sample words would be a nice-to-have as something, anything that casual readers can glom onto - even if what it's demonstrating is actually a similarity rather than a difference. But I read the examples in Kloekhorst's paper, which are all hypothetical old words and about as clear as mud, so... respect that this is hard to do, since modern languages have concealed the difference leaving us with Old Avestan and reconstructed PIE. Basically, some sort of "here's a reconstructed word with *ḱ, here's a word that should have a *ḱ but really has a *k because it's followed by *r, here's a word that has a *ḱ and is followed by *r*i" might be nice. While I think this would be helpful, it's not enough to block promotion - just something to strongly think about if there's a good example in the sources. (And if there are good examples in modern languages, that'd be even better.)

A cautious support - this is one of those topics I suspect isn't very main page friendly (only hardcore linguists stumble on this article by accident), but there's absolutely a place for that in FAs. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your kind words and support. I was concerned this page would languish in FAC limbo with only two supports, so thank you for voicing your support here as well.
With respect to the table, I took both yours and UC's table hopes to heart and I genuinely cannot think of a way to adequately tablify the concept without it descending into extreme theoretical historical linguistics. In effect, what Kloekhorst is arguing is that at an earlier date, the palatalized consonants may have been more widespread, but PIE is reconstructed through the comparative method and every daughter language appears to have depalatalized either all palatals (centum languages), all palatals before resonants (satem languages, except Indo-Iranian), or all palatals before *r alone (Indo-Iranian). This is why Kloekhorst doesn't give examples, only possible counterexamples. I gave the Avestan example from de Vaan as a helpful explanation, but both Kroonen (p. 244) and Matasović (p. 224) reconstruct the root as *krep- and I don't see any real reason to reconstruct the palatovelar except perhaps to posit a relationship with another root. All this to say, I made a table after UC's comments, but found myself realizing why Kloekhorst wrote the paper the way he did.
Again, thank you for supporting the article for FA. If you have any suggestions later or think of some way to further de-technicalize the article, feel free to let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass; image review pending

edit
File:Eisenberg Wohnhaus Oskar Weise Tafel.jpg needs a licence for the plate. I wonder if the information in the files of the "overview" section can be sourced. File:Centum Satem 2000BC.png is even tagged for such and should probably say where the underlying map comes from.

Is there a logic between the use of quotes in the references? Also, many inconsistent IDs in the sources section. "Kleiner, Kurt (19 February 2024). "New Linguistics Technique Could Reveal Who Spoke the First Indo-European Languages". Scientific American. Retrieved 1 August 2024." is a somewhat so-so source IMO.

Spotcheck:

  • Yes, I removed that since spotcheck began; while it is true that the tongue moves, it's not pertinent to the process of assibilation (e.g., [c] → [ç] is still assibilation even though the place of articulation remains the same), so I removed it pursuant to WP:OFFTOPIC. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, per Beekes: "Assibilation, the development of a palatal or palatalized consonant into a °sibilant or (a cluster or) an °affricate with a s-sound as a second element; e.g. PIE *ḱmtom > Skt. śatám, Av. satəm; Latin centum > Ital. cento [č-]." (p. 302, where "°" signifies "defined elsewhere")
  • 16 OK (I can read German and checked the translation)
  • 19 I think this source might actually benefit from a quotation.
  • Okay, I added a few. The two pages contain a lot of information to confirm Kortlandt's thoughts on the topic, but I tried to minimize the length to make the point.
  • 21 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 25 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I've seen this page, but I don't get "The effects of the law are commonly found in zero-grade stems – that is, stems without their typical vowel – which often receive inserted vowels in the daughter languages in order to ease pronunciation" from it nor "Although the original palatovelar *ḱ does not immediately precede *r in the Avestan reflex, it is still in accordance with the depalatalization described by Weise's law since *ḱ immediately precedes *r in the zero-grade form *ḱrp-os-". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've cited the definition of zero-grade per Beekes and changed the wording for the first concern. For the second concern, *ḱ and r are separated in the reflex (see the romanization provided) and de Vaan says that the zero-grade is affected as a result of Weise's law and may go back to *ḱrp- on p. 138. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26 supports the whole claim: "PIE: *krep- [...] oblique case-stem of the PIE etymon, *krp-". Matasović uses "case-stem" instead of the term "zero-grade", but they refer to the same thing. As for 27, the page is correct (p. 244); Kroonen even gives the same Old Avestan example as de Vaan and shows both the full grade (*krép-es-) and the zero grade (*krp-). ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29 Needs a page number.
  • Already paginated: 266.
  • This should be fixed now. It looks like I wrote backwards a little bit; I've added a clear restoration model example and clarified that the ajra example should align with the morphemic boundary model. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already paginated with quote: 268.
  • 36 Is there a transcript of the pertinent part of the video?
  • Not that I'm aware of, but I'll see if I can't whittle down the ~10 min time frame/quote the appropriate parts of it. ETA: Added a quote from the slide.
  • 37 I am not sure that this actually says that Indo-Iranian languages had secondary depalatization.
  • It doesn't. First usage is to discuss later depalatalizations in Albanian and Balto-Slavic only and the last usage explicitly carves out the Indo-Iranian languages from the statement.
  • 41 OK
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the source/image review. I'm planning to fix these sometime in the next 24 hours or so, barring any unforeseen circumstances. I've responded to a few things above. As for getting copies of the pages, how should I go about doing that, given that the source is copyrighted? I've never done this through Wikipedia before. Re: quoting strategy, there isn't one. Mostly, if I thought the context were relevant or the quote particularly useful, I added it. I tended to exclude quotes that were particularly technical. Re: inconsistent IDs, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example? Re: the plate, should any additional licensing be necessary, given that Germany has freedom of panorama? Thanks again for the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got to more of these. A few questions/comments. For the articulation images, can just I cite Beekes's definition of assibilation (palatalized consonant → affricate or sibilant) or is there something else that should be cited? For the map, I've cited the general areas where these were. I can attempt to recreate the map without coloration if you insist. As for the SA article, I'm not sure what's objectionable about it; the author cites or interviews reputable linguists (Olander, Clackson, etc.) and Renfrew's claims are the minority, but well-known and have some support; I think he's wrong (see Goedegebuure source), but there are linguists who agree with his reasoning and he holds a high position at a reputable institution. It's a reputable source per WP:RSPSS for popular science, which is its only function here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beekes' definitions would work. With the maps, I mostly want to see where the background map comes from. The thing with SA is that such popular science things often have somewhat lower standards than journals and thus may not satisfy the "high-quality" requirement of WIAFA. Although I confess that such a source was allowed into 1257 Samalas eruption so I guess it's not an universally shared concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cited Beekes as discussed. Re: the map, I have no idea where it comes from. Can I suggest replacing it with File:Indo-European migrations.gif or File:Indo-European steppe homeland map.svg and changing the caption accordingly? I think SA is fine for what it is here, but if you really feel strongly about it, say so and I will look for a different source. In any case, let me know how you would like me to transmit the copyrighted pages you requested above. I'm happy to type out the quotes if that's acceptable, but if there's an easier/better/more appropriate way, just let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the Dropbox or Google method, but email is probably easier. Aye, the image should be replaced if its information can't be sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I've found links for Adams et al. 1997, Monier-Williams 1899, and Beekes 2011 on the Internet Archive. Your user page also indicates that you have access to JSTOR; if that's true, you should have no problem getting Trask 2000 through the link provided. If not, just let me know and I can copy down some pages. Books for 25, 26, and 27 were already linked; are you having trouble accessing them for some reason? I think that should cover everything, but of course let me know if you need me to provide any more sources. ETA: I have also replaced the image as discussed. The citations are nested in the Commons, but present. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Trask 2000 apparently isn't in the JSTOR package. IA seems to be occasionally flaky when it comes to which pages it shows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've addressed everything above. Pages not found in links provided in the article can be found in this Dropbox. Let me know if there are any more concerns, if IA keeps acting up for you, or if you have trouble getting access to DB for whatever reason. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid that this dropbox requires a login. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link. I tested it logged out so hopefully it should work now, but let me know if it doesn't and I can just email it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It works now. Noting though that it doesn't have all the works that I need to check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to hear it. I did a little spot check and it looks like everything requested has either been provided in the dropbox or have been linked in the current revision of the page. If IA continues to give you trouble, let me know and I can drop some more pages for you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think #32 is the only one missing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the dropbox now with the beginning part highlighted. Monier-Williams uses an older form of linguistic shorthand so you should read "fr. √aṅg" as "from [the] root aṅg" ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I caught everything, but I've been wrong before. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Thanks for your patience and understanding. I know this is a seriously technical set of sources. 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this review is done; you can deactivate the Dropbox. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks a ton for the review/support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added for the benefit of the coordinators: The sourcing in the captions of File:Voiceless palatal plosive.svg, File:Voiceless alveolar sibilant affricate.gif and File:Voiceless alveolar fricative articulation.svg needs additional page numbers, or a suggestion to look up the terms in the source via search. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this requiring action on my end? Happy to add more pages to the dropbox if need be. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; an explanation of how to find it in Beekes, or additional pagenumbers, should suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Beekes gives the example of [c] (ḱ) → [s] on the page cited and [ts] is used to express "an affricate with a final s-sound as the second element". What needs to be explained further? Do I just need to add something like "p. 303 § Assibilation"? ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the captions of the images. The file descriptions don't explain why the particular tongue movements should be palatal stops, alveolar fricatives or alveolar sibilant affricatives, so the caption needs a source. Beekes p 301 tells me what an alveolar is, the others need an explainer too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything should be squared away; everything was able to be cited in Beekes. Let me know if there's something else that needs to be defined or cited. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Should be good on the image review then, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, save for Borsoka's point with the borders of the PIE Urheimat but I'll let that conversation proceed without my input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be cleared up now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Weise%27s_law/archive1&oldid=1247133446"