This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've never commented in Wikipedia before, but I am bewildered by this entry. Almost all linguists would agree that all languages are equally complex, if the whole system of the language is taken into account, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and discourse. They all have the capacity for expressing the same information.
Tuyuca has some features that make it quite different from English, but it does not have any features that are not found in plenty of other languages. In particular, there is nothing inherently "difficult", or even unusual, about evidentiality... in fact, English speakers virtually always express one or another type of evidentiality in their sentences... we just don't do it with verb morphology... we do it with adverbs, modals, complement-taking predicates, etc etc etc.
If a language is supposed to be "the world's most difficult language", you would need to show that it actually takes native speakers significantly longer to master (in its spoken form) than any other language, or requires more cognitive processing, and I don't see any evidence that this is true for Tuyuca.
The citations for this article are all "gee whiz aren't languages strange" pop linguistics type articles with no scientific credibility.
Not what I expect to see in Wikipedia!
I don't personally have the expertise on Tuyuca or the language family it belongs to to provide an adequate wikipedia article on it, unfortunately. It deserves a factual non-sensationalist treatment like other minority languages get.
68.6.93.242 ( talk) 04:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Srikandi
Let's talk about this. If, for example, we go to the English phonology page, you'll see that, despite failing to show the EXACT placement of each vowel, which is more complex in English than Tuyuca, the table does a damn fine job without needing any alignment fuzzing. The alignment as you're putting it is hideous, it goes against (as far as I know) every single other phonology page on Wikipedia, and provides no information whatsoever as to the PHONEMIC values of the vowels. I've reverted your reversion, and I'm very interested as to your defense of this alignment. Kielbasa1 ( talk) 23:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)