This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
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 articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
TJEevee.
Support merger. I'm not familiar with the term logatome from the scientific literature, which may suggest different technical terminology in different fields. My training is in linguistics; the sources cited at Logatome come from speech therapy and the sub-sorter says the article is related to psychology. They seem to be the same concept used in related fields. By the way, wug words is another name for pseudowords used in learning experiments, as mentioned on
Pseudoword. See also
Accidental gap, which is not the same concept but is vaguely related.
Cnilep (
talk)
03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Support merger – seem identical/synonym (putting “also known as logatome or wug word” at top of pseudoword, and merging content/refs seems sufficient). Thanks Allen!
Oppose - There is a difference: a logatome usually consists just of one syllable and is used in particular in acoustic experiments. So it is actually some kind of variant of a pseudoword, which deserves a separate article. I have tried to make it clearer in the article
logatome.
The Wiki ghost (
talk)
08:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your efforts, but... I am biased, of course, but I think that given the length of the two articles (Logatome in particular), merger with a full separate section for Logatome (noting both the one-syllable nature and it being used in particular in acoustic experiments) makes more sense than keeping the material two separate places with cross-references. Otherwise, people have to go back and forth between the two pages (Pseudoword gives a much fuller description than Logatome), which is especially problematic if printed out or on a slow connection. What do others think? Are there Wikipedia standards for this other than
WP:SIZERULE, which with only 468 bytes of readable text (not links or references, using
User:Dr_pda/prosesize) for Logatome supports merging it? And is there anyplace else that I should post regarding this proposed merger, to get more viewpoints in? Sorry for only thinking about posting to people's talk pages after a delay - I'm glad I didn't just go ahead with the merger; I do want to include all viewpoints!
Allens (
talk)
11:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Exactly how the merged text is worded is likely to depend on the answer to this question: Does a "logatome" still "consist[] most of the time of just one syllable" even in languages with mostly
open syllables, such as Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and especially Hawaiian? Or (checking
Logatome#References) does this tendency have something to do with the systemic bias toward German and English, whose roots tend monosyllabic, in the references? --
Damian Yerrick (
talk |
stalk)
14:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
That's an excellent question... I will confess that I have no professional background in linguistics (having taken a total of one course in the subject); my interest comes from the synthesis of new "words" for role-playing gaming and other constructed languages. (I have a bit more knowledge of psychology; in terms of the experimentation usage, my doctorate is in the natural sciences, so that's an area I'm pretty confident in.) Could you explain further the relevance of closed vs open syllables? Is this because of a correlation with monosyllabic vs multisyllabic roots? (If so, it would be nice if that were noted in the article section on open vs closed syllables, with appropriate referencing, of course...)
Allens (
talk)
18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
(Here come the
calculations) By the definition of a
syllable, the number of potential pseudowords of one syllable equals number of onsets times number of nuclei times number of codas. Because open-syllable languages have only one coda, there are far fewer possible open syllables. (Here comes the original research) Languages tending toward open syllables tend to have few monosyllabic
open class words simply because there are fewer possibilities. As for referencing,
Monosyllabic language needs sources too. I gave English and German as examples of languages in which CVC syllables are pronounceable, but I'm hesitating on going further without sources. --
Damian Yerrick (
talk |
stalk)
23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Support: while the
logatome article is not particularly clear on its exact definition, it does make clear that is is a type of pseudoword. A subsection in the
pseudoword article may (or may not) be warranted, but this is a distinct issue from these articles covering similar areas. --
Trɔpʏliʊm •
blah20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Is it just me, or does the second paragraph of the lede imply (or even explicitly state) that the words "ciphers" and "typos" are pseudowords? In any case, that whole paragraph seems to me to be rather poorly written.
ComeAndHear (
talk)
04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply