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

Weise's law

Featured article candidates/Weise's law/archive1

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]

Support from Gog the Mild

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]

Borsoka

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 assume that the three sounds mentioned in the article are not attested, but assumed - this should be clarified.~~ Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

UC

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.