Talk:futured

RFV discussion: February 2016–March 2017
Of a language: having the future tense. Not apparent in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All I can find is this master's thesis which uses the term in quotation marks. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This transcript of a TED talk is presumably durably archived somewhere, but I couldn't actually prove it. Spinning Spark  13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith Chen, "Could your language affect your ability to save money?", TEDGlobal 2012, June 2012.
 * What you see is that these bars are systematically taller and systematically shifted to the left compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.


 * There is also a lot of people writing about Chen's talk, this Huffington Post article for instace ("Futured language speakers, presumably seeing the future as distant and less important..."). So do we accept the Huffington Post as durably archived?  And more generally, do we accept articles talking about Chen as being independent? Spinning Spark  13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The master's thesis linked to above is also just quoting Chen. I wish economists would stick to economics and let linguists do the linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and perhaps you also think that Samuel Morse should have stuck to art and left telegraph design to the engineers? Spinning Spark  22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not knowing anything about telegraph design, I'm not in a position to say whether Morse had as poor an understanding of it as Chen has of linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This one is unarguably a print source as Infotrac returns the page number: Spinning Spark  13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wan A Hulaimi, "The connection between language and money", New Straits Times, p. 22, 6 September 2015
 * Futured language speakers, he says, tend to save less than those whose language is unfutured.
 * If the "he" in that sentence refers to Chen, we still don't have independent usage. So far, everyone using this word is either Chen or quoting Chen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. If this does fail RFV, the link from futureless needs to go. Equinox ◑ 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Dahl uses the term futureless repeatedly in Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe which I found from the bibliography of this published paper by Chen (don't know why I didn't find that earlier).  Chen also, after several mentions, actually uses the term without quotes: "In Europe for example, most Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages have been futureless for hundreds of years ." Spinning Spark  17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Equinox is saying that the link to futured in the entry futureless should be removed if this fails (which I agree with), not that the entry futureless should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I misread that comment. Spinning Spark  12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2016–March 2017
Of a language: having the future tense. Not apparent in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All I can find is this master's thesis which uses the term in quotation marks. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This transcript of a TED talk is presumably durably archived somewhere, but I couldn't actually prove it. Spinning Spark  13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keith Chen, "Could your language affect your ability to save money?", TEDGlobal 2012, June 2012.
 * What you see is that these bars are systematically taller and systematically shifted to the left compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.


 * There is also a lot of people writing about Chen's talk, this Huffington Post article for instace ("Futured language speakers, presumably seeing the future as distant and less important..."). So do we accept the Huffington Post as durably archived?  And more generally, do we accept articles talking about Chen as being independent? Spinning Spark  13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The master's thesis linked to above is also just quoting Chen. I wish economists would stick to economics and let linguists do the linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and perhaps you also think that Samuel Morse should have stuck to art and left telegraph design to the engineers? <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not knowing anything about telegraph design, I'm not in a position to say whether Morse had as poor an understanding of it as Chen has of linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This one is unarguably a print source as Infotrac returns the page number: <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wan A Hulaimi, "The connection between language and money", New Straits Times, p. 22, 6 September 2015
 * Futured language speakers, he says, tend to save less than those whose language is unfutured.
 * If the "he" in that sentence refers to Chen, we still don't have independent usage. So far, everyone using this word is either Chen or quoting Chen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. If this does fail RFV, the link from futureless needs to go. Equinox ◑ 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Dahl uses the term futureless repeatedly in Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe which I found from the bibliography of this published paper by Chen (don't know why I didn't find that earlier).  Chen also, after several mentions, actually uses the term without quotes: "In Europe for example, most Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages have been futureless for hundreds of years ." <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Equinox is saying that the link to futured in the entry futureless should be removed if this fails (which I agree with), not that the entry futureless should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I misread that comment. <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)