Talk:Genetic (linguistics)

Proposed merge

Not sure this is necessary - while genetic relationship is a defining characteristic of a language family, they are not exactly the same concept.

However, genetic relationship seems to cover exactly the same ground as this article. --JWB (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be merged. Unless someone can come up with a reason why they shouldn't be merged. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two merges are you talking about? --JWB (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic (linguistics) and Genetic relationship should be merged. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll change the merge tag accordingly. --JWB (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but they should be merged into this article, not the completely infelicitous "Genetic relationship" article. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs sources

The proposed merge seems appropriate, but the term itself is problematic. Soruces should be cited for its use, with a thought to finding a preferable term. Jmldalton (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very poor and infelicitous term. "Genetic linguistics" redirect to the much better and more common "Comparative linguistics." Where did this "genetic" term come from? Is it widespread or limited to one or two scholars & able to be ignored (/fails notability)? -LlywelynII (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]