Talk:Khoisan languages/to do

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be added to the article:

  1. References/Bibliography (made a start)
  2. Internal classification (this is at List of Khoisan languages and perhaps should be merged --kwami 20:54, 2005 August 31 (UTC))
    • Hadza (isolate)
    • Sandawe (isolate)
    • South African Khoisan [not known to be a valid genetic node]
      • Northern (Ju) [essentially an isolate]
      • Central (Khoe)
      • Southern (!Ui-Taa)
      • Isolate (=Hõã) [unclassified, not an isolate]
      • Undetermined (probably Central) (Kwadi)
  3. Khoisan research
  4. A map of the actual situation would be cool, as well as a map of their distribution in early colonial times (similar to the one in Güldemann & Vossen 2000) - look here, but they are all in Russian.
    • If you like some of them I'll try to find time to translate it.Koryakov Yuri 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some linguistic features (comparative, showing the wild divergency of the Khoisan languages) — more than the celebrated clicks.
    • I started a section about the Khoisan language diversity today. It could use much more fleshing out. Msd1996 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Khoisan language articles on Wikipedia in general need to follow Ethnologue less closely; rather, they should be based on solid published sources. The naming of Ethnologue, for one, is by no means clear, nor consistent, nor widely used (see Treis 1998 for a nice overview).
  7. Instead of just having a general bibliography, go through and cite individual statements according to Wikipedia's citation guidelines.
    • There are many need citation tags in the intro that I added. Fixing these is urgent because they are in such a dominant spot on the page.
  8. I recently removed the external links because they had expired. Someone should add some new ones. Msd1996 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Much of the information in the intro section is only in there. I think the intro section could be rewritten to hit only major points, and the minor points could be moved elsewhere in the article.

Last update: — Msd1996 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous update: — mark 07:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)