Talk:Eurolinguistics

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Europe

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Heading revert

I've reverted to my original heading, since the suggested new heading doesn't make any sense. -- Sinatra 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate material

Most of this article is duplicate material from European languages. Is there a reason for this? Any reason not to merge or delete it? ~ Veledan • Talk 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I copied the text from here into the entry European languages. The reason is: here the results of the topic, namely Eurolinguistic studies, are presented, while under European languages the material can be seen as a description of the topic. --Sinatra 18:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

Is this a real discipline? It sounds quite vague to me? 惑乱分からん 11:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real discipline. If you enter the term into a search engine, it'll give you many hits. -Sinatra 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider 774 hits (Google search for "Eurolinguistics"), some of them referring to Wikipedia or Wikipedia-derived content, to be that many. Eurolinguistics definitely exists, but I would hesitate to call it an academic discipline. To me, it rather seems to be a small community of linguists who call themselves "Eurolinguists". But research on European languages is also done by many, many other people, who do not call themselves Eurolinguists. --zeno 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto

Is Esperanto really being proposed as an official EU language? It sounds mainly as a proposal from romantic Esperantists... 惑乱分からん 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such proposals exist. Cf. the works by Hilmar Frank, now quoted in the article. -Sinatra 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Languages of Europe?

Hello! I think this article should be merged with the Languages of Europe article. They handle very similar topics. Moreover, a lot of sections are almost identical in content between them. Maybe the list of languages (in that article) could be put into a separate article, e.g. List of languages of Europe or List of European languages. What do you think? --Antonielly 13:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on this suggestions already above and don't see any new arguments for merging them. Again: this article here gives the results of the discipline, namely Eurolinguistic studies, while under European languages the material can be seen as a description of the topic. -Sinatra 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking again, the section on "common features of European languages" could indeed be put under Languages of Europe with a separate entry List of European languages, but I fear that they only accept linguistic descriptions on Europe in its geographical sense, if you have a look at the talk page there. --Sinatra 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not give "the results of the discipline, namely Eurolinguistic studies". It is an example of idiosyncratic editorializing about a topic by means of creating content forks. Proper titles for articles on topics discussed here would include not just Languages of Europe (which is still a poor list-like article) Linguistic geography of Europe, Language politics in Europe, etc. etc. "Eurolinguistics" is just an ad-hoc neologism, which, I might add, reeks of the 1990s. It isn't an objective "field" or "discipline" in any way. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dubious?

Definition of Europe: Why should the minor Greek and a major Latin heritage in European languages be dubious? What I find more difficult to reconstruct is the common history of the arts, education and formation. What do you mean by this, Sinatra? And do you think that inhabitants of soviet republics were not Europeans? I'm referring to societal pluralism - nonmember on 03 Feb 07

By common history of arts I refer to the developments that are transnationally shared (though in various degrees) with respect to literature, architecture, music, painting and the like. As regards education and formation, this refers to the development and spread of the universities and their curricula as well as the philosophical ideas such as scholaticism and the Enlightenment. In this sense, inhabitants of soviet republics are not part of the (West-)European civilization. -Sinatra 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the purpose of this page to "define Europe". It is the job of this article to define the term "Eurolinguistics" and establish its notability for the purposes of Wikipedia (WP:NOTE). Once this has been accomplished, "Europe" for the purposes of this page will mean whatever it happens to mean within the (alleged/supposed) field of "Eurolinguistics". If there is no definition of "Europe" relevant to the topic of "Eurolinguistics", this may be because there is no meaningful definition of "Eurolinguistics" beyond "any linguistic stuff that happens to be concerned with Europe an any generic sense, shape or form". --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary - Latin

The Hungarian Kingdom was itself a multiethnical state, and was a part of a multiethnical empire as well. The Latin was used mainly in the central governance of the Hungarian Kingdom both to eliminate national tensions inside the Kingdom (whose language should be spoken in the Parliament, why that specific language, why not others etc. ), both to thwart the attempts of the Habsburgs to impose German as an official language, with the help of the dignity of the Latin language. In the local communities, and in the local tribunals/juries and in the local registers/records/official documents mainly Hungarian or sometimes German was/were used. But when the nationalism was born, a movement aroused in favour of the Hungarian language, which resulted in the gradual giving up of the Latin. The process started in 1791,(Law on the usage of Hungarian: http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=4890), continued in 1836 (Law on the use of the Hungarian language http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=5148) and finally the one and only official language became the Hungarian in 1844 (Law on the Hungarian language: http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=5255). The date of 1867 of abandoning the Latin is simply not true. The possible source of this misunderstanding is that after the fall of the revolution of 1848/49 the Habsburgs tried to impose the German as the only language acceptable - without effect. After 1867 these kind of Germanization became impossible.The often cited book, the Language Planning and Policy in Europe, by Robert B. Kaplan,Richard Birge Baldauf p 72. (available in Google Books) can be misunderstood, when it says that Hungarian became the offcial language only in 1867, but if You read it carefully, it does not say that the LAtin was the official language till 1867, but it supports my version

I don't know when other states gave up the Latin, maybe it is true that the Hungarian Kingdom was the last one giving it up - but 1867 is totally wrong, 1791 is preferable. --Ltbuni (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this page

This article seems to labour under the misconception that it is supposed to be about European linguistics in general, while in fact it is about "Eurolinguistics", a concept of limited notability: It appears to be an actual scholarly or ideological concept proposed in the 1990s. It includes:

an original proposal by Reiter (1995), apparently based on a Puschkin-Manifest of 1991
Eurolinguistischer Arbeitskreis Mannheim (ELAMA)
Eurolinguistica Sud (A.E.S.) in Rome
Eurolinguistic Network South East (ENSE) in Zagreb
Eurolinguistic Association (ELA)
EuroLinguistiX (ELiX) "founded in July 2004, is a virtual venue dedicated to cross-linguistic issues of European civilization"

If this article wants to remain relevant, it should be reworked into a discussion into the history of whatever it is these think-tanks, departments or other kinds of outfits have done over the past 20 years. And it should stop trying to define "Europe" or cram 2,000 years of linguistic history into a single-page essay. "languages, linguistics, ethnicity and language policy in Europe" is an extremely wide field which is covered in dozens, if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles. This is just a page on an intellectual concept related to this general field over the past 20 years. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and inclusivity

I feel like this article’s tone is written in a very Classical-centric perspective (too much reliance on Ancient Greek and Latin). Language families other than Indo-European and Uralic are not acknowledged (especially Turkic languages and the numerous language families of the Caucasus). The author(s) blatantly forget to list Armenian as a major writing system of Europe. There are many mistakes in this article that I could list, but overall it is not inclusive at all and uses an outdated perspective to explain Eurolinguistics. I suggest it be greatly revised or made a section within the “Languages of Europe” article. Blueskies006 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]