Talk:Ordinary language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ordinary language redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2015. The result of the discussion was redirect to Ordinary language philosophy.

Philosophy

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Linguistics

This redirect 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

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Merge with Ordinary Language Philosophy?[edit]

Seems to be little that distinguishes this from ordinary language philosophy, other than that is written much better. Bacchiad (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any merger would be best done into this page as ordinary language is a bigger topic than particular schools of philosophy. Andrew D. (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example[edit]

The first paragraph currently says

For example, the statements "I find that class of person very annoying" and "Birds fall into a different class from bees" might be said to contain ordinary English uses of class.

I think the second example in this sentence should be deleted. While it might be an example of ordinary English when spoken by a non-biologist, it would be an example of technical English when spoken by a biologist (distinguishing the class Aves from the class Insecta.) if it is removed, the remaining example in the sentence will be sufficient to make the point. Loraof (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comes off as Anti-Analytic Philosophy[edit]

Does anyone agree? Let's merge it with Ordinary Language Philosophy? OhWhyNot (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe get rid of it at all, since it's not even a linguistic category as far as I know. Could anyone find me a source that gives it the same meaning as the philosophical term? Or a lingustics professor using this at all? Does anyone see the only category on the article is for "Philosophy" and this is totally disputed. Maybe have "ordinary language" redirect to "ordinary language philosophy"? OhWhyNot (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Left the reasons in the log.

Wait, I changed it, and answered back, but that wasn't me... OhWhyNot (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article. If you want to sugegst a merge , suggest a merge, but I think there are probably sufficient sources. It's certainly not a reason for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright I changed it to the regular deletion WTFisgoingonhere (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that OhWhyNot (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really, really fishy here. OhWhyNot (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to natural language[edit]

Shouldn't this be redirected to natural language?--37.251.220.113 (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]