Talk:Enochian

Linguistic trivia

• At the risk of annoying those who've been arguing over this article, I have to ask, is there a reason so much of the article is devoted to technical trivia? A lot of very short sections dedicated to minor details of grammar which inflate the amount of the page taken up by those sentences and fill up the list of contents. I don't recall it always being the case in the past, so I assume this was done recently. But why?

Hypothetically:

• If you approach Enochian as a believer these details are unlikely to be what you're looking for; more likely you're interested in the history, its usage in ritual ceremonies, and its relationship to numerology and Enochian magic. These topics could probably use more coverage.
• If you approach Enochian as a sceptic these details are only interesting to the extent that they arguably demonstrate that Edward Kelley was a charlatan. Otherwise, grammatical trivia probably isn't of interest. A more developed "Relation to Early Modern English" section would suffice. ("Relation to other languages" may be a better title as it would allow more inclusive coverage, encompassing Dee's views on its relationship to Semitic languages and the confusion of tongues.)
• If you approach Enochian as a casual reader, you're probably interested in its connection to John Dee and its script as these are familiar topics which are sometimes referenced in popular culture. "Prepositions", "conjugation", and "cases" are unlikely to interest these readers.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting all the grammar material be purged but does each minor topic really need a whole subheading for what amounts to a sentence or two? Who does this help? Afaik, this isn't even the norm for language articles. Many articles simply have a section on "grammar" and another on "syntax" summarising these details. Such specific subheadings seem to usually be reserved for long articles dedicated entirely to a particular language's grammar.

tl;dr - It may better to prune the subheadings under "Linguistics" and add a few to "History" (perhaps into Background, a section on the reception of the script and Liber Loagaeth, and another section on the reception of the Angelic Keys). This would give the article a more balanced structure and contents list. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of material in Leitch to expand most if not all of those sections. It's a reasonable article structure which encourages expansion and the addition of further details. Skyerise (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Yeah, but does it really need that expansion? Even if I ignore the section lengths, the article still looks unbalanced; if anything, if I pretend the sections are long and detailed, it's more unbalanced. Adding more material might be asking for Template:Overly detailed. Maybe I'm underestimating notability and interest in detailed modern analyses of Enochian grammar, idk. I suspect such material would be better off someplace else, like a book on topic, rather than a general encyclopedia article. I know this is a language article, but, like I said, other language articles don't seem to be structured like this. Additionally, just because the sections could be expanded in future doesn't mean the article's structure should pre-empt such additions now. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the stub sections should be merged. There's also the issue that Leitch is not a RS for linguistic parsing, so we should be careful how we use them. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami and Skyerise: Would you mind if I make some changes to the section structure in line with what I've suggested? I thought I'd ask first since Skyerise wanted to move slowly, and reorganising sections may be controversial.

I was thinking:

• History
  • Seeking contact and reported visions
  • Receiving the Angelic Keys
• Phonology and script
• Grammar (derived from most of the current "Linguistics" section with fewer headings)
  • Morphology
  • Syntax
• Vocabulary and corpus (section derived from the first few paragraphs of "Linguistics" which describe lexis and compares the angelic speech of the Liber Loagaeth and Angelic Keys)
• Relation to other languages (derived from lines in "Linguistics" which compare the grammar to English and Semitic languages; may add a short line noting Dee's belief that it was the Adamic language spoken before the confusion of tongues)

So you know roughly what to expect. -- Scyrme (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead made my changes. Please correct the article if I've misplaced anything, particularly in relation to the grammar section. -- Scyrme (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. I touched up a couple places. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, it's fine to cover details like grammar/vocab, since this may be of interest to linguists and ppl into conlangs. However, the article should prioritize the most relevant points, and we shouldn't be too exhaustive. I think the current setup works fairly well. Xcalibur (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Geometrical symbol

Is it possible for someone to re-create the symbol....... because I can.....on paper at that.....no computer assistance 2601:153:880:A3F0:FDCF:43CB:6191:FF50 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this page not titled "Enochian language" for disambiguation?

What it says in the title. Why is this page simply called "Enochian", and not "Enochian language", to disambiguate it from Enochian magic and other Wikipedia articles also starting with the word "Enochian"? I feel that just calling the page "Enochian" would be confusing for readers. Obversa (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)