Talk:agglutinative language

RFD discussion: August–September 2016
The definition is nonsense, and even if it weren't, I think this is just agglutinative + language. Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've replaced the nonsense definition with an accurate definition, but the accurate definition is SOP. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd be inclined to keep since the relevant definition of agglutinative applies predominantly or only to languages. This is the Talk:free variable argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of, yes, but "sticky language" would make no sense and the relevant sense of "agglutinative" has the "linguistics" label attached. Thus, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a difference between a semantic association between two words and their being lexically a compound: one can talk about agglutinative morphology, or about how Proto-Indo-European was more agglutinative than most of its descendants, or about how Turkish is agglutinative, but Chinese isn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "That language is agglutinative". Same meaning; components separated. Equinox ◑ 10:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about "keep it up" and keep up, where components can be separated? In fact, the possibility of separation is typical of the talk:free variable items. But many are not convinced by the free variable argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the phrasal/prepositional verb area as quite a different area from the attributive/predicative adjective distinction. Equinox ◑ 16:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But let me still point out that the separability and attributive-predicative convertibility of the adjective component are typical of talk:free variable items (see there) such as algebraic number, bound variable, or imaginary number. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Straightforward delete. Topically interesting but lexical not so. Agglutinative not only or mainly used with language so that's not a defence either. It's more like green grass than imaginary number. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete; the linguistic sense of agglutinative is not limited to this phrase and can be found also in environments such as "agglutinative suffix", "agglutinative character", "agglutinative derivation"… --Tropylium (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: there is nothing to this other than agglutinative + language, literally. The literal definition is "a language that is agglutinative". Lmao. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add a few more: Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (see Chuck's point regarding the difference between this as free variable). - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

agglutinierende Sprache
German. A translation of the term. Seems to be the same deal, doesn't have any meaning other than "a language that is agglutinative". Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

eklemeli dil
Turkish. Same as above. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

All deleted. bd2412 T 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)