Talk:Meillet's principle

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Meillet's principle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although three witnesses are typically needed in linguistic reconstruction, only two are necessary if borrowing and innovation can be ruled out?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meillet's principle.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Royiswariii talk 05:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Range of the Oceanic languages

... that a linguistic reconstruction needs the testimony of three witnesses before it can be considered valid?

Source: DeLancey 2023, p. 108

ALT1: ... that a modified form of Meillet's principle has been used in the study of semantic change in the Oceanic languages? Source: François 2022, p. 32
ALT2: ... that cognates are referred to as "witnesses" when Meillet's principle is applied in linguistic reconstruction? Source: DeLancey 2023, p. 108
ALT3: ... that although typically three witnesses are needed in linguistic reconstruction, only two are necessary if borrowing and innovation can be ruled out? Source: DeLancey 2023, p. 108
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kim Kuk-song
Comment: Tried to stick with open access papers, but I understand they may be a little dense; I'm happy to explain anything that is unclear.

Created by ThaesOfereode (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Doing... ミラP@Miraclepine 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - Not severe, but the "principle has been subject to some criticism" paragraph should have DeLancey and Hoenigswald's viewpoints expanded beyond the one sentence mentioning the fact for their viewpoints to have WP:DUEWEIGHT.
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article:
Clear at 100px: - Linguistic context seems too hard to make out given how small the islands are.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Sized at 3846 B and created day before nom. Sourcing is reliable and verified, and article is generally good enough for DYK. I'm leaning ALT3 given the rebuttal of DeLancey and Hoenigswald makes ALT0 misleading without an "according to". This article should run without the image per my reason above. @ThaesOfereode: fix the one issue and you're good to go. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Thanks for reviewing! I've expanded on the criticism a little bit, but if I need to flesh it out further or demonstrate something else specifically, let me know. I've also changed the criticism piece to read as a criticism of the original formulation, especially since DeLancey actually supports it as a process for demonstrating conclusiveness. I agree about the image; I think 100 px makes it too small to be legible with all those colors. Criticism of ALT0 makes sense; happy to have any of the other ALTs run in its stead. Thanks again. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaesOfereode: I am satisfied with the outcome and have made a minor fix for logic. ALT3 approved. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fix looks good. Thank you again for the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]