Talk:Mongolic language

Another one that, IMO, needs to be listed separately. It's not a specific language but the name of a group of languages. Hence keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Been here 20 days now, and nobody knows why it's been nominated for deletion. Move to keep in absence of a reason to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept, for that reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongolic language
Even if it weren't sum of parts, it is a plural-only term. -- Prince Kassad 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Trickier than it first appears. This passed rfd earlier when msh210 tagged it and didn't list it, so I listed it asking 'why is this here' and after nobody replied, I closed the debate. We also have Romance language which I voted to keep, but in fairness I think I was wrong. Romance language is essentially sum of parts as long as you have the proper meaning of Romance. So... delete and make sure Mongolic covers it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. But how is it a "plural-only" term? There appears to be hits for "is a Mongolic language" on Google. ---&gt; Tooironic 07:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I err on the side of keep. I do not think that the scope of "Mongolic language" is immediately clear from the definition of "Mongolic", other than the definition "Mongolic"--"Of or relating the group of Mongolic languages", which in its turn relies on "Mongolic language". In fact, the current definition "Any of a group thirteen of languages spoken in Central Asia" seems a stopgap one, as I cannot determine based on what characteristics the languages belong to that group. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is because Mongolic was missing a sense, which I have now added. -- Prince Kassad 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have added "Mongolic"--"A major language family spoken primarily in Mongolia and surroundings". Can you add any quotations that support this definition? Should "Mongolic language" be construed as the noun "Mongolic" attributively modifying the noun "language"? That seems improbable, to me anyway. Rather, it seems that if "Mongolic" can be attested as a noun, this is back-formed from "Mongolic language". I have no evidence to support this hypothesis, though. --Dan Polansky 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is rather easy actually. Cf. 1999, Roger Blench, Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, Volume 2, p. 203:
 * Similarly, there are indications that Mongolic and Turkic can be identified with the ethnic categories of Donghu and Xiongnu, respectively,

...or, if you want something else, see 2000, Barbara Unterbeck, Gender in grammar and cognition, p. 700:
 * Apart from their significance as manifestations of class and gender in the languages of North Asia, the class suffixes in Mongolic and Tungusic have also many other consequences to the understanding of the diachrony of these languages.

-- Prince Kassad 10:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Tooironic, not plural-only. Delete as SOP. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of "Mongolic" with respect to which this is SOP? --Dan Polansky 09:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Adjective, "of or related to Mongolic a language family" (which refers back to the proper-noun sense, "A particular language family"). Or possibly the sense here is just the proper-noun sense itself (in attributive use)? Not sure how to distinguish them when the word is modifying a noun. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RFD failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)