Open main menu

Wiktionary β


What about the definition meaning obscene or profane language in particular, as when a film is rated PG for "language"? 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"The expression of an understanding" — I just can't understand this. Should I necessarily follow the external link to become enlightened? Dart evader 18:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never been able to understand it either. To me, it’s doubletalk. Don’t bother with the external link, it mentions nothing about "expression of an understanding". —Stephen 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But it's been here for more than three years, after that edit: [1]. Dart evader 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The definition "expression of an understanding" is apparently meant to embody the philosophies described on the external link. I'm certain that the vast majority of English speakers don't attach such a meaning to the word "language". This definition has no place in the article--it certainly doesn't qualify to be the first definition. --Diacritic 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've started discussion on Wiktionary:Tea room already. Dart evader 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the westernization (I'm making some definitions in my userspace to organize my study of languages) should be something more like: "expressed concepts".--Esteban.barahona 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
For the first sense, it does require that "words" be mentioned, or it blurs the distinction from other definitions. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


In the phrase language policy, is the word language not used as an adjective? 16@r 14:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. You can say "this is a language policy," but you can't say "this policy is language." Likewise you can't say "this is a very language policy," or "this policy is more language than that one." So from here it looks like this is just the usual attributive use of a noun. -- Visviva 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for this answer. And what about the phrase "linguistic policy", can I say this or does it seem awkward? 16@r 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's slightly awkward, and has a subtly different meaning -- a language policy is a policy about language, but a linguistic policy would be a policy which is linguistic in character (whatever that means). Nonetheless, "linguistic policy" would be perfectly understandable in most contexts. But there's nothing wrong with using language policy, really. This sort of attributive use of nouns is perfectly respectable English grammar. -- Visviva 15:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

From WT:RFCEdit

So, the primary definition of language for the past four years has been "an expression of an understanding", which is in turn a reference to a book. While in the context of the book, I imagine that definition is quite meaningful, however I'm hoping everyone else also sees that it is hardly appropriate for Wiktionary. So here's the problem, there are quite a few translations attached to this meaning (perhaps simply because it has been the first entry for so long). It seems to me that this definition should be cut, and its translations relegated to the trans-check section. Thoughts? Atelaes 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had similar feelings last time I looked at that entry, but haven't been brave enough to tackle the cleanup. More cleaning power to you! --EncycloPetey 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of that ridiculous definition and allocated all of its translations to ttbc. However, in my opinion, we could shave off all but maybe three of the definitions. They're highly redundant. However, I'm just not feeling that bold. If some langophiles feel like attacking it, it could use some help. Atelaes 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? I'm not sure about the distinctiveness of sense 2, but I'd keep all the others myself. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think two and three are defined by one. The rest should stay. Atelaes 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
They may need improvement but they are seem distinct to me. MW3 has 6 main senses and 9 subsenses.
BTW, Meaning 2 refers to the generic capability of communication, but seems to exclude sign language as a part of that capability. If we are harkening back to an age when such languages were ignored, this sense should remain unrevised and a more inclusive sense added. Alternatively, a weasel-worded clause or phrase would be needed to indicate that some include and some exclude sign languages from the "gift of language". DCDuring 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Since 2008, this has has many improvements. RFC tag removed and striked --Volants 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Return to "language" page.