Talk:Language reform

Unsourced claim

I would like to see a source for this claim, which strikes me as highly unlikely:

The International Phonetic Association has made numourous attempts to change all languages accross the globe. This reform does not delve into grammar, or sentence structure, instead, simply asks that we do away with all the alphabets across the globe and use a single, unified one instead. This makes use of the concept of the perfect alphabet, one that has a symbol for every sound that humans can verbalise.

AFAIK, the purpose of the International Phonetic Alphabet is make it possible to provide a phonetic transcription of every spoken language, but I have never heard that the International Phonetic Association intended this to replace any language's common orthography or that it "asks that we do away with all the alphabets [sic; perhaps you mean writing systems?] across the globe". --Angr (t·c) 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

im sorry, i really am not an expert, but there was no article on this and language reform facinates me. evrything here is from my own (patchy) knowledge. please, by all means do what you will to the article, i want it to be awesome. mastodon 01:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Date rewritten

Under "Simplification" changed "Spanish (in the XVIII century)" to "Spanish (in the 18th century)"

Can you link to the 'Language purification' article? Thank you

I have added a link form there to the 'Language reform' article. There are interesting intersections. When I have to remove parts form the 'Language purification' (also called 'Debabling') article, please let me now. I think currently the two articles have a good fit, the reform article has a more academic point of view, the purification article is primary practically oriented. Thanks, Iwanjka (can be reached as well at iwanjkawiki@it-inspiratie.nl). Would be great to have a one to one discussion on this topic, contact me, if you are interested as well (email).Iwanjka (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing spelling reform and language reform

Most reforms listed in the "example" section are in fact spelling reforms that didn't touch the respective languages. I propose to remove these and add a few sentences in the lead section about the distinction between language and spelling reform, so that this article is only about language reform proper. I think this is justified, because we already have a separate article about spelling reform. --Schuetzm (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a spelling reform a language reform?

I am surprised that the intro restricts the simplification wording to grammar and vocabulary where English language reforms almost always are about spelling reforms, for instance. --Pierrejcd —Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not distinguishing spelling reform and language reform

A spelling reform can touch a language in a very major way: how a language is read and how it is written. Therefore, I have added the word spelling in the introduction because spelling or orthography is an integral part of a language in the same way that its vocabulary and its grammar are. A spelling system (orthography) is an integral part of a language, which a language depends on to visually represent words and allow a language to be read (decoded) accurately. Pierrejcd (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper reference to 1984 in section "Simplification"

The section "simplification" contains an explicit reference to examples of [Newspeak] from George Orwell's 1984, such as "ungood" as a replacement for "bad." 1984 is the story of a nightmarish totalitarian dystopia, so conflating a real-life phenomenon like language reform with Orwell's novel will give it undeservedly negative connotations. There are numerous historical examples of language reform that shouldn't be colored by association with Newspeak. At the very least, if not rewritten then this section should at least contain a citation to Orwell or 1984.18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.227.245 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language reform. 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/20110916161700/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212397385&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212397385&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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) 22:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)