 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Classification edit
Does "unclassified language" really fit? That category mostly contains languages that are thought to be not affiliated with any existing family --JWB (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The classification as Macro-Bai is sourced to a couple of blog entries, so I've removed it from the infobox, and question whether it should remain in the article. Baxter and Sagart (2014:34) say the language is "definitely part of Chinese". Kanguole 09:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- My recent edits were probably not appropriate, then. If you change that here, you should make analogous edits to Sinitic languages, where Waxiang is currently listed as possibly Baiic. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Waxiang is Sinitic, but there seems to be a Macro-Bai substratum going on (I've had discussions with Roger Blench about this). Some Chinese sources (don't remember the references / citations) have claimed that Waxiang may be mixed with Miao, but I personally don't see any of that going on. — Stevey7788 (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- It would be good to have a published source, but it sounds like you're not arguing that it's part of Macro-Bai. (The terminology is confusing, as the Wikipedia article Sinitic languages is about the old proposal of a Sino-Bai node, while most authors these days use Sinitic as a synonym for Chinese as a language family.) Kanguole 11:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)