Talk:Bambara language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think we can remove the stub template now. Perhaps one of you (feel free, Guaka ;-)) could add a section about the grammar; if that is done, there are imho no reasons left to call this thing a stub. (Excuse my humble command of English) Caesarion 09:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's not bad, and improved since I last checked. It might not be a stub (if a stub is an article of only two or three paragraphs); but it's certainly still in need of expansion. It should have more on grammar; more on classification; more on dialects; more on geography and demography; more on phonology; more on morphology (basic word structures etc.); and it should have a references section (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). On the day that we are going to make it a Featured article, it should also have a nice map and some sound samples :) — mark ✎ 13:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- All this is true, of course, but I felt the "stub"-notice as in implicit insult to all of them who did so much work for it. But anyway, it should be expanded, as should so many other articles. Caesarion 15:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Language infobox
I miss the language infobox and information about the language family to which the Bambara language must belong. Perhaps someone (perhaps Guaka) can add these. Meursault2004 14:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Good point, I've added it. By the way, the article already stated that Bambara is one of the Mande languages. — mark ✎ 14:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes I also read that the article says that Bambara is a Mande language. But I didn't know that it is a Niger-Congo language. I thought it was a Nilo-Saharan language. Meursault2004 15:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Accents can be used to indicate tonality"
Which accents for which tones? What about nasality? And vowel length? Evertype 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Context-free
I've pulled out the following pending verification:
- In mathematical linguistics Bambara is regarded with interest, since for only very few languages it was possible to show that they were not context-free. For Zurich German and Dutch the proof is based on sentence construction, whereas the proof for Bambara is based on word construction.
I think we need a reference for that, and even then I doubt the relevance to this particular article. It's more of a nice factiod for context-free grammar. — mark ✎ 09:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)