Talk:Diasystem

This article was poorly researched. It contradicted the verdict of linguists. The notion of diasystem fell into disuse a generation ago. Another academic objection is that one poorly written sentence can be interpreted to suggest that the inventor of the concept himself, Weinreich, was inspired by generative phonology. Of course, when Weinreich published his paper in 1954, generative phonology did not even exist yet.

The immediate previous version was seven years in the making (it hadn't been edited in the last 13 months). In that version, there was a conspicuous failure to consult textbooks in the field, or (with the exception of a discipline dictionary) to consult relevant works more recent that 34 years ago, this in a young, fast changing discipline. (An article from 31 years ago was cited only to attribute the use of terminology, and a source from 22 years ago was a dictionary, not a linguistics research work). Moreover, half the article was taken up with a digression on the diaphoneme, although there is already a separate article on that. Dale Chock (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your effort. In the same breath that you argue that this article was "poorly researched" you removed over a dozen sources and replaced well-cited content with mostly uncited (or inappropriately cited in the case of Pulgram), vague prose. All of this seems to be based on one chapter in a book originally written in 1980, which hardly seems to escape the very criticism you've outlined. Similarly, you argue against the use of older sources while saying that the concept itself is outdated. If it's outdated, we would have to draw on older sources.

I have restored all of the content (including a detailed exploration of an actual example of a diasystem from Trager & Smith that you removed because it happened to be diaphonemic) and removed some of the confusing or especially controversial things you have added such as the etymological meaning of diasystem, Weinreich's inspiration from the diaphoneme concept, the overrepresentativeness of Chambers & Trudgill, and the use of Pulgram to back up a claim he most likely did not make (it's rather fishy that the Pulgram citation is identical to that in Chambers & Trudgill, especially since they point to the same page number; I'd be surprised if you actually looked at it).

You also say that it "contradicted the verdict of linguists," though the article had already alluded to the failure of scholars to come up with a cognitively real (and therefore appropriate) diasystem. I have expanded on this in my edit, though it draws on content from the relevant section at diaphoneme.

Also, you have implied here that the article you edited was seven years old. However, the form that preceded June of 2010 was completely different as it inaccurately defined diasystem as what is covered at diglossia. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your confusion may be due to being better versed in the fields of creative writing and science fiction than in linguistics. Your objection consists of rhetorical flourishes. For example, the argument that the book I cited was "originally from 1980". Its second edition is from 1998. Sociolinguistic dialectology is a young and fast developing discipline, like computer science. Here, you refused to acknowledge that the book has seen a second edition, 1998.

The article was academically out of touch due to things like out of date references that moreover, as a group, dealt more with details that with the overall validity of the concept. Weinreich's proposal is in disuse. The terms diasystem and polylect are still in use, but diasystem is emptied of the content Weinreich was researching 57 years ago. Its meaning now is superficial, meaning a group of very closely releated dialects. Scholars no longer use it to denote a potentially powerful theory of dialect grammar. It seems to need repeating: the previous article was stuck on the state of the art in the mid 1970s, a generation before Chambers and Trudgill 1998. You seem unaware that Trudgill has to be one of the top few authorities in the field. Chambers and Trudgill is not overrepresented. Just counting citations is ignorant.

As I touched on previously, the lengthy discussion of the Trager and Smith example was editorially inappropriate. Not on its own merits, but because, in my judgement: (1) it constitutes a digression in this article, it wouldn't in the diaphoneme article; (2) it is too technical, we have to explain the issues at more length, even if it were placed in the diaphoneme article, in order for enable even a linguistically sophisticated reader to appreciate it.

No one should mislead themselves into believing that I believe that the form I left it in is final. Let editors with good knowledge of linguistics, and good research skills, add appropriate citations. Indeed, I intend to do so myself. And appropriate content: e.g., Chambers and Trudgill 1998 spelled out how Weinreich 1954 failed. Dale Chock (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The diaphoneme concept, too, is not vigorous in linguistic theory. Dale Chock (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. Just to compare this article to average Wikipedia articles, the dearth of recent references is stunning and way out of the norm. Dale Chock (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dale, Aeusoes. I saw this exchange on my watchlist, and I thought I should intervene to calm things down. First, let's keep our comments focused on content, not on contributors. It doesn't feel good to have your competence disparaged, and things will go a lot smoother if we can avoid these kind of comments altogether. Second, it looks like we might have to find a compromise position here - we can't just keep reverting each other and hope that the other guy will tire out. The comments above cover basically the whole article, and I have found through experience that it is very hard to agree on everything at once in situations like this. A better way to do this is to take one point at a time (and it usually helps to start with the least controversial one). Would one of you like to nominate the first topic for us to discuss? I will be around to make sure things don't get out of hand. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. If we're going to start with one thing, I would say the removal of the example of the diasystemic analysis by Trager & Smith (1951). Dale calls it a digression because it's diaphonemic, but a diasystem's normally are diaphonemic. If it's too technical, or if it isn't clear that the analysis has been dethroned, we can revise it rather than remove it.

With something as abstract as this, it's important to have a concrete example for readers unfamiliar with the concept. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

First, let me address two particular changes by me that Aesuoes objected to. (1) I deleted a table and two paragraphs devoted to Trager and Smith (1951). Well, the old text criticized Trager and Smith (1951) on two grounds (a) Weinreich in his very article on diasystem asserted their solution was not genuinely based on the diaphoneme concept, even if they thought it was; (b) 15 years later, a scholar supposedly proved that their solution was descriptively inaccurate, anyway. Therefore, it's foolish to go into detail about T&S (1951) in this article. Any dissenters? (2) I was chided for misattributing Pulgram. My response: (a) Now I agree. It was an honest confusion while dealing with all those citations. (b) Don't use that trivial mistake as an excuse for reverting me totally.

Second, the old Pulgram citation (before my changes) is one of two instances in this article of a mistaken citation practice. In this instance, somebody cited Naraja citing Pulgram, and included both as sources. Don't do that. Think of, "where did I get the information?". If you got it from Naraja, cite Naraja. Don't cite who Naraja says they got it from. It's OK to say what Naraja said: "Pulgram said X". The attribution for that statement will be Naraja. If you are bent on mentioning Pulgram, then you either should (1) find Pulgram's monograph and cite Pulgram and not Naraja; or (2) put Pulgram under Further Reading. This same mistake was made by citing "somebody citing Sledd (1966)".

Third, in response to Mr. Stradivarius. The scenario you advise is not the only one. I think you jump to the conclusion that Aesuoes will not eventually be persuaded. The point I made, that an article that is effectively devoid of citations from within the last generation is beyond unacceptable, is sooo obvious that it should eventually be persuasive. Moreover, there is the option of posting a Request for Comment. Dale Chock (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Darn, i forgot to mention. If one wants examples of the concept of diasystemic grammar introduced by Weinreich (1954), one would be well served to consult the chapter from Chambers and Trudgill 1998 that i rely on. One might also look for examples in, duh, Weinreich (1954). Just not Trager and Smith (1951). Dale Chock (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A fresh observation. Aesuoes (and every other previous editor) hadn't touched this article for 13 months. Yet Aesuoes responded to my reconception of the article within a day. Now, although the explanation for this contrast could be anything, a likely one is that Aesuoes actually thought the article was close to perfect, that every topic that needs to be touched on was, and that no topic was included that doesn't belong. The only appropriate changes would be more examples or better presentation. Dale Chock (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dale is saying that the T&S example is not a good one because it's been shown to be descriptively inaccurate. But if the concept is outdated, that isn't a diqualifier.

To be clear, I didn't revert Dale's edit entirely. In fact, I did my best to include everything he had put in, the exceptions being what I had identified in the talk page. The particular statement that he had Pulgram back up, I felt, was better left uncited since previous cited statements established this sufficiently. What I reverted were his removals.

In addition, not only do I agree with Dale on the old Pulgram citation but I should add that what it said was entirely too speculative (diasystems could be something other than diaphonemic, not that any non-diaphonemic diasystems have been observed). That's why I removed it.

I've read a lot about Weinreich (1954) but I haven't actually gotten my hands on it. I picked the T&S example because it is the most notable one, being an analysis picked up and assumed by other linguists for some time before it was thrown out. Moreover, the T&S diasystem reflects the specific attempts by generativists to create an analysis that covers English dialects, an interesting phenomena somewhat separate from Weinreich (1954). Anyone interested can check out Harold Allen's 1977 article "Regional dialects, 1945-1974" in American Speech 52 (3/4), which covers American dialectology up to that point. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

". . . the T&S diasystem reflects the specific attempts by generativists . . ." T&S is from 1951, whereas generative linguistics dawned about 1960. The title of Weinreich's paper is "Is a structural dialectology possible?" Structuralism; the only significant theoretical perspective in linguistics in the 1950s was structuralism. That seals it: by this confusion, you absolutely demonstrate you are in over your head, while contributing to languages and linguistics articles profusely. A problem with Wikipedia linguistics articles that is not limited to one editor. I hope you know the difference between the Blue and the Gray in the American Civil War.

"Dale is saying that the T&S example is not a good one because it's been shown to be descriptively inaccurate. But if the concept is outdated, that isn't a diqualifier." Well, that is totally incoherent, which makes me suspect it's not what you meant to write. Vague, as well: which concept?; disqualified for what? You're making me repeat myself, which is not nice. IF the argument of T&S (1951) were accurate and were based on diaphoneme(s), then it would be an example of diasystem. Previous editors invoked citations arguing that it is inaccurate and that the coiner of the term diasystem himself deemed it not diaphonemic. Then of course it should be deleted!!!

It's pathetic that you've taken such an interest in this article for years and haven't read the founding article (Weinreich 1954).

Your assertion that the assertion you claim was attributed to Pulgram is too speculative, is invalid. The claim is just the opposite. However, i will have to have to finish addressing that later. It's a minor point anyway, and the article needs no mention of it from either point of view. Dale Chock (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can replace generativists with American dialectologists. This is from Allen (1977)

Kurath (1957, 1961, 1964c) adversely criticized this BINARY analysis as well as the hypothesized /h/ offglide or semivowel and defended for the purpose of dialect representation his unitary system, but the Trager-Smith analysis found great acceptance among American linguists until James Sledd (1966) demonstrated the inadequacy of its nine-vowel limitation.

In other words, the T&S diasystem is a notable example, perhaps even the most notable example.

Prelude: We have to wonder if you meant to start a new paragraph at "This is from Allen", because the quoted passage does not use the words "generativ/ist" or otherwise allude to generative theory. (By the way, i just checked Allen (1977) and nowhere else in that article does he identify T&S (1951) as generativist.) Obviously, the passage is being submitted as support for the belief that Trager and Smith (1951) is a useful example of the subject matter of Weinreich (1954), and so would be well placed in the WP article. Now, let's move on. As i pointed out in my previous post, you revealed yourself as utterly ignorant of the difference between the two major theory perspectives in the history of linguistics. AS FOR the T&S issue: you seem to have lost track of the fact that an article on Diasystem should be more about what the inventor of the concept said (Weinreich in 1954) than what somebody else published--published before introduction of the concept. You certainly have lost track of the fact that superior examples of what Weinreich was addressing can be found in Weinreich's papers than in Trager and Smith (1951). Instead, you doggedly defend having discussion of T&S (1951) in the article. Finally, the quoted passage doesn't even support your enthusiasm for T&S. It does not mean what you think. "Linguists accepted the Trager and Smith analysis" is ambiguous, it's highly subject to interpretation, it does not patently state that all of T&S's presuppositions were widely accepted. AND AGAIN, why was this the ONLY example procured by the previous editors? Dale Chock (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I was under the impression that Dale would refer back to his own comments to understand my summary of what he had said:

Dale's rationale for the removal of content in this article has been that the concept of the diasystem is no longer in use. That doesn't justify removing content. In the same way that we can go into depth about disproven aether theories, we can go into depth about the diasystem. Even if it is a concept no longer in use.

The "depth" that you purport to see in it, isn't there. That's an inept comparison. The ether theory in physics was of much greater importance in the history of physics. It lasted a long time, it was of broad scope, it drove a lot of research and teaching. The diasystem concept was a detail in linguistic theory, and an ephemeral one. This comparison betrays lack of scholarly sophistication.

Dale implies that T&S would have to be accurate to be an example of a diasystemic analysis. This is false. Especially because, according to Dale, all diasystemic analyses are false.

Dale implies that T&S was not based on diaphonemes, though that contradicts his own statements and that of authors cited.

This preceding sentence is a total misrepresentation on the part of AEsuoes. I quote footnote 7 from the last version of the article before my participation (it's dated New Year's Day): "Stockwell (1959:265–6), citing Weinreich (1954:395), argues that Trager & Smith (1951) do not present a truly diaphonemic inventory of sounds because". AEsuoes is 180 degrees wrong, twice! (1) In that quotation from Wikipedia, the author Stockwell is cited as having said this about T&S. (2) On the matter of Trager and Smith (1951) being discussed in the article, I didn't imply anything, i made explicit statements. I did not declare that T&S (1951) was not based on diaphonemes, i declared that previous editors cited someone else declaring that! AEsuoes is not only unfamiliar with linguistics; he's being unscholarly in general. The most innocent explanations for doubly misquoting me would be carelessness and being scholastically unskilled. Dale Chock (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of date: above, where i referred to a version of the article dated New Year's Day, it was really New Year's Day of 2011, not this year. Dale Chock (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not argue any further about a statement that we have both deleted. We agree it shouldn't be there and going any further is just beating a dead horse.

"Previous editors invoked citations arguing that it is inaccurate." Which previous editors? Perhaps Dale could look in the edit history.

The article reported, flatly (before i ever edited it, that is), that Sledd disproved it ("it" being, again, an analysis presented in Trager and Smith (1951))--the article said, "This system was popular amongst American linguists (despite criticism, particularly from Hans Kurath[12]) until Sledd (1966) demonstrated its inadequacy". What is AEsuoes's point in calling on me to identify who inserted it? It was there, therefore somebody inserted it. If AEsuoes is so interested in who, then let AEsuoes can search the edit history. Dale Chock (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dale, have you read Weinreich (1954)? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You acknowledged (without prompting) you haven't read it. Why do you care who has?

Note to readers: above, I have replied to selected points in the previous post (01:28 o'clock, about three hours ago). However, I have placed each reply immediately following the related point, as opposed to collecting them. Dale Chock (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be numbering my responses so that we don't need to reply inline and confuse future readers.

1) Dale says that "an article on Diasystem should be more about what the inventor of the concept said (Weinreich in 1954) than what somebody else published--published before introduction of the concept." Does it not matter that Weinreich discussed T&S in his article? This is from Allen (1977), which I recommend a thorough reading of for anyone interested in the topic:

Weinreich said that Trager and Smith had erred in proceeding with the construction of an overall system, a DIASYSTEM, before they had established the relevant component phonemic systems.

Furthermore, because the concept of the diasystem reaches beyond Weinreich, it doesn't make sense to limit the article to just what Weinreich said or just his thinking on the matter. This article also includes sources that talk about a "polylectal grammar" which certainly is not a term that Weinreich used. Even Dale himself has gone beyond Weinreich with his inclusion of information from Chambers and Trudgill.

2) Dale has not addressed the key issue: he removed content that is related. When he made the rationale that the concept is no longer in use, I used Wikipedia's coverage of aether (another concept no longer in use) to show that this is not an adequate justification. By focusing solely on where the analogy breaks down (aether is more notable), he fails to address the point of the analogy. Again, that the concept is no longer in use is not an adequate justification for removing an example in the very article that covers it. It is also nonsensical to say that the example was not very deep or that coverage of it lacked depth. Where is the sense in removing an example over lack of depth and, at the same time, not offering any replacement?

3) Dale has now accused me of misrepresenting the situation since, he says, he did not actually imply anything.

Here is what he said "IF the argument of T&S (1951) were accurate and were based on diaphoneme(s), then it would be an example of diasystem." The structure of this sentence (a conditional statement) shows that Dale thinks it is not. He then offers evidence to back up this belief, a further indicator that he accepts this inference. What is this evidence? A now-deleted footnote that he cuts off mid-sentence. If he had continued the quote in question, it would read:

...because it includes oppositions without considering the effects of phonetic context; in a diaphonemic inventory, a set of general rules should suffice to recover phonetic data so that there is a modicum of phonetic integrity. Few scholars make this distinction.

The last sentence is bolded to emphasize that the footnote says that the idea that T&S is not diaphonemic is an unusual idea. Also important is that Dale provides no evidence that a diasystem has to be diaphonemic in the first place. Diasystems do not have to be diaphonemic. They usually are.

4) I was being coy. I am the previous editor. Back in June of 2010, I redid this article even more drastically than Dale has. I only bring this up because Dale seems to think that they are separate from myself.

5) My question was two-fold. If Dale had had a digital copy of it, I would hope to procure it via email so I could read the direct source myself. Or, barring that, he could fill me in on important things I may not be aware of from only having read about the article in question. When Dale said "One might also look for examples in, duh, Weinreich (1954)" and I said I not been able to read it, he referred to my predicament as "pathetic." The second purpose of my question was related to this inflammatory judgment. If Dale really thinks that my predicament is pathetic, then it would also be pathetic for him to try to rewrite this article without having read the founding document. So, Dale, I ask again. Have you read Weinreich (1954)? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 06:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

AEsos keeps replying to me with red herrings. More important are three points i've already made. (1) Weinreich's concept of diasystem is a relic in today's linguistics. The term only has vigor as a superficial, convenient generic term for "group of closely related dialects". (2) Regarding linguistics, over the last few days on this Talk page, AEsos has shown he absolutely doesn't understand what he's reading and what he's writing. (3) He made a false accusation about me AND the article. AEsos insisted that the article from before my rewrite did not cite criticisms which it obviously did cite, and i made mention that it did cite them. Again, here's AEsos's phony claim, which I already replied to 04:24, 25 Feb 2012 (i.e., yesterday): "Dale implies that T&S was not based on diaphonemes, though that contradicts his own statements and that of authors cited." The truth is (1) that there's a footnote saying that Stockwell and Weinreich refuted T&S's belief that their analysis was based on diaphonemes; and (2) that AEsos is claiming to be the editor who wrote that footnote. The phoniness of his accusation was readily disproved by quoting from the old versions, and he was the editor most involved in the article in the most recent period before my rewrite this month. AEsos's flailing response was to interrogate me, "who placed those edits?", which is a red herring. Now he's answering, "it was I!" AEsos still hasn't acknowledged the point of "coyly" (as he has just put it) asking, "who placed those edits?"

I will address just some of the latest five points. He keeps quoting passages (from Allen 1977, for example) thinking that they confirm his arguments, but in fact AEsos is just reading things into them. They don't because, variously: their content plainly contradicts him; whether their content is relevant to his opinions is impossible to determine from them alone, the reader would need much more context or much more specialist knowledge; their prose is obtuse. I addressed some of these futile quote citations yesterday. About today, two rejoinders. (1) He alludes to Footnote 7 of the version of 1 Jan 2012 ("the now deleted footnote . . . cut off in mid-sentence", which he quoted above, today). The second half, which he quotes--how is it relevant? It ends with, "few scholars make this distinction"--without a source, that is just AEsos's opinion. No, it hardly matters that Weinreich discussed Trager and Smith (1951). AEsos has a fetish about T&S 1951. AEsos edited our Wikipedia article here (or at least retained edits) to say that one linguist proved T&S 1951 factually false and that Weinreich disallowed T&S 1951 as an example of what Weinreich was advocating. Aesos keeps nagging, "why does any of that matter to our using it?" What more can i say to that? (2) After one year or two, AEsos has not found a PDF of Weinreich (1954) available online to the public. He doesn't know how to use Google to find academic publications! Yet he's editing academic articles in WP left and right! To get this particular article, you don't need to connect to a university library computer network, nor do you need access to a subscription only database, nor do you need to have a university affiliation.

Clarification of date: above, where i referred to a version of the article dated 1 Jan 2012, it was really 1 Jan 2011. Dale Chock (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But again, the quality of our linguistics articles suffers from AEsos's edits. Dale Chock (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. It doesn't look like we are any closer to agreeing yet - how about posting this at the dispute resolution noticeboard? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have never participated in this article. The dispute is less than a week old, there are only two people involved in it, and neither of us has acknowledged asking for coaching from or from anyone else. Now that you have tut-tutted twice, it is time for you to declare your motivations and intentions. Dale Chock (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution might be a good idea at this point. Dale has shown an unwillingness or inability to discuss the issue without hostility. It's hard to find consensus with two editors when one of them can't even bother to get the other's username right, much less resist the urge to browbeat those who might disagree with him. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dale - I am heavily involved with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. I regularly assist at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I am one of the coordinators of the Mediation Cabal. This situation is quite unusual in that I had this article watchlisted before the dispute even started, rather than becoming aware of it through a noticeboard post, but I am performing essentially the same role as I would at an official dispute resolution forum. (I haven't had much actual involvement here yet, however.) My motivations are merely that I don't like to see disputes escalate, and I wanted to calm this down while there's still a chance that you two can both work together. I've found that it is usually better to turn to dispute resolution earlier in cases like this one. More eyes will help us find the best solution according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and help us to create the best article that we can. And Dale, your expert knowledge of the linguistics literature would form an integral part of this process - conforming to the policies and guidelines won't result in an article that's "half as good", but rather in an article that is intimately based in the modern scholarly consensus on the topic. I hope this answers your questions, but do let me know if there's anything else you want to know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated the deleted content into what Dale has added. Past that, all of my changes may not be obvious from a simple reading of the new version or comparison of versions. Here are somethings I've done

• I've removed mention in the article of Weinreich, Labov & Herzog (1968) since it was it cited inappropriately as backing up contemporary usage (a claim which isn't not even backed up the given section) despite being over four decades old.
• I also removed a paragraph that says that the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics does not include the term diasystem, mostly because the claim is untrue. It also is a form of wp:weasel wording that attempts to imply something (that the term is irrelevant) without saying it.
• I've also removed the characterization of Norwich as homogeneous. Trudgill does not make this claim and it is confusing to readers to say this in the same paragraph that it is made clear that there is linguistic variation within Norwich English.
• I've also tagged a few phrases and references, which could do with some attention, mostly having to do with citations, though I don't understand what's being said about the Romani article and can't scrutinize it, since I don't speak French. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that 'diasystem' and 'diaphoneme' were not in the index of that encyclopedia after looking in the index. For your counterclaim to have merit, you must disclose the pages of the encyclopedia where those terms are mentioned. Dale Chock (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Page 36: Diasystem A common system of linguistic relationships [structural, grammatical, phonological, etc.] established as underlying two or more dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You misread and misquoted me. I didn't post that they weren't in the encyclopedia, i posted they weren't in the index. And that's correct! The definition you quote out of the encyclopedia is in the Glossary, which — as you failed to mention — is included in the volume that contains the index. The terms are not important enough to the editor of that encyclopedia to mention in the index, let alone give them their own entry — which invalidates your 1.5 year project. By contrast, "DiaNa monkey" (near where "diaPhoneme" and "diaSystem" would be) is mentioned over a dozen times in the index. Dale Chock (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I see I have misunderstood what you included in the article, though my mistake is likely to be a common one; the exhaustiveness of the index is such an irrelevant and nitpicky thing to focus on, that a reader is likely to (as I did) assume that "index" has been mistakenly used instead of "glossary." Moreover, since this mistake is obvious from the wording of my post above and you initially chose not to correct me as you have done now, I'm compelled to wonder if the potential for this (mis)reading is not by design. I stand by my assessment that this delves too far into wp:weasel territory as it does not back up or even illustrate the claim that the terms have limited currency in linguistics.

This, by the way, is not to deny this claim. If Chambers & Trudgill (1998) is insufficient to back up (or illustrate) the claim of limited currency, we may have to go with not out-and-out saying it or saying it without citation for the time being. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is bad for one to reinsert edits without replying to the objections to those edits. I intend to undo what AEsos reinserts whenever he doesn't face the arguments raised with arguments of his own. Dale Chock (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Certain edits were deleted for different reasons. I address deletions not explained in the edit summaries. The statement, "diasystemic representations are also possible in dictionaries" is silly. Dictionaries are written by scholars. Any representations are possible in dictionaries, whatever scholars choose to put in them. Scholars observe speech communities, but they create dictionaries. The "surge" in language teaching materials between 1954 and 1959 is not, in this context, a notable event. Again, language teaching materials are going to reflect scholarly fashions. Besides, the most crucial information turned up by my research was that Weinreich diasystem was debunked within about a decade. After another five years, the great majority of the field had definitely moved on. Dale Chock (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AEsos made a censoring, pussyfooting change to my insertion in his first edit of 3 March 2012. In doing so, he clearly misquoted and misrepresented the source. I had written, "Weinreich further lamented that there was hostility between linguists and dialectologists: linguists found the current practice of dialectology "impressionistic" whereas dialectologists found linguistic theory "metaphysical"." AEsos made the silly tonedown: "In addition, there was some perceived incommensurability between dialectology and linguistics; linguists found . . . ." Not only is his tone inappropriate, but "incommensurable" is not even close to what Weinreich (1954) said. W said in his very first two paragraphs: "The stauncher adherents of each discipline claim priority for their own method and charge the others with 'impressionism' and 'metaphysics,' as the case may be; the more pliant are prepared to concede that they are simply studying different aspects of the same reality. This meight seem like a welcome truce in an old controversy, but is it an honorable truce? A compromise induced by fatigue cannot in the long run be satisfactory to either party." Catching the pointless edit five days late, I have reverted it. Dale Chock (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since User:Dale Chock or I have contributed to the discussion page. I think we've had time to clear our heads, though there is still dispute over content. Here are things that Dale has removed that I think are worthy of including:

• The Trager & Smith example (discussed above without resolution)
• Mention of a non-human diasystem
  • Dale says that these are a) off topic b) speculative c) one linguist's remarks d) in a book review and e) not part of linguistic research or received teaching.
• Discussion of the issue of cognitive reality
• The academic fields where the concept was used.
• Mention of "polylectal grammar" in the lede.
  • Because Dale correctly says here that the comparison was unsourced, I have now sourced it.

There are also some things that Dale has included that I disagree with:

• The claim that diasystem is used "as a convenient expression for multiple related dialects." I had tagged this claim for verification in February but verification has not come. Instead, an example from a French article is used as an example (though it isn't clear how representative this is) and an article from 1968 (hardly representative of contemporary usage) is cited as backing this up, though I already noted above that verification has failed.
• The unsourced etymology of diasystem put in the lede
• WP:Weasel wording, such as the statement that Weinreich et al. 1968 only use the term just once or that various relevant encyclopedias and dictionaries don't have the term in their indexes, that implies things without stating them.

I have restored content that Dale removed and tagged the article as having POV issues, since I'm assuming that Dale still has a problem with this content. I also removed the things I disagreed with but, after doing so, I realized that it might be a good gesture of good will to consent to restoration of these three items until the matter is discussed and we come to an agreement. So feel free, Dale.

As a related aside, I do also want to bring up this edit summary that states that text was "deleted without objection stated" but it's not clear what Dale is talking about. I had reworded and restructured prose he had included. I think I made it more clear and cogent; if I reworded it to say something false (I have since clarified what "other researchers, following Trubetzkoy" means), then it wasn’t worded clearly in the first place. What exactly is the issue? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In the latest remarks, AEsos has not even defended his judgements. He only listed them. In previous months also, he rarely defended his edits. Beyond that, he has demonstrated on this page and in the article utter ignorance of linguistics. Dale Chock (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was merely summarizing the points of dispute. Are you interested in collaborating? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 11:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

this needs to be included68.148.186.93 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diasystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192555/http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ddurian/AWAC/weinreich%201954.pdf to http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ddurian/AWAC/weinreich%201954.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118031415/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the following passage "/θ/ and /s/, whereas most Western Hemisphere dialects of Spanish have just the latter," the word "all" should replace the word "most" because no variety of Western Hemispheric Spanish has /θ/.S. Valkemirer (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I just took out "most." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't there a list of some hypothesized diasystems on this page? 67.8.168.231 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)