Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistic law
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Linguistic law[edit]
This was tagged as speedy, but has information density over my threshold for patent nonsense. Original research? jni 09:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You can describe everything about this original research with the two phonetic symbols, Del and ete. --Zarquon 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the other article by the author of phonetic pattern, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phonetic pattern. Andrewa 12:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, personal essay, original research. However... I think this is sensible musing and speculation by someone who is asking reasonable questions, but doesn't seem to be aware of existing answers. See the article on Chunking for a description of how some subjects were able to memorize extremely long strings of binary digits by recoding them into integers. For the use of musical pitch as an information carrier; even English uses pitch already to add information to speech. In effect the question mark is encoded in speech as a rise in pitch at the end of a sentence while the period is encoded as a fall in pitch. My understanding is that in Chinese differences in pitch can completely change the meanings of words. Silbo, used on La Gomera in the Canary Islands, is an encoding of Spanish vocabulary and syntax into pure whistling. I imagine Silbo has seen much wider use than Solresol, a constructed language which either be spoken using the names of the notes of the musical scale or expressed purely in terms of pitch. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree. Quite right about Chinese spoken languages and other tonal languages (hmmm... but I see a couple of problems with the tone (linguistics) article). Perhaps you would be better than I to send a greeting to this newcomer? No change of vote. Andrewa 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Either original research or a newbie mistake, as expressed by Dpbsmith above. JoaoRicardo 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As a linguist, I find the page patent nonsense. The sentence "We know that English has 440 different phonetic patterns, supposing there are only 440 different things waiting to be expressed" is utterly absurd, whatever the definiton of "phonetic pattern" is supposed to be (and no definition is given). There is such a thing as a sound law in linguistics, but this isn't it. --Angr 09:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Josh Cherry 01:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. More incomprehensible original research from the people who brought you phonetic pattern. — Gwalla | Talk 22:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.