Talk:Oratio obliqua (philosophy)

Philosophy: Language / Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of language
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Proposal to merge with indirect speech[edit]

Support The two articles are talking about the same phenomenon. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not the one who proposed this, but I'm starting the discussion since they didn't leave a note.)

Oppose. These are not the same topic. "Oratio obliqua" is a technical term for a branch of modern philosophy which requires a separate article. At the moment it is just a stub awaiting someone of greater philosophical knowledge to add more detail. It is not merely another term for "indirect speech" or "indirect discourse", which refers to a set of grammatical rules for reporting speech differing from one language to another. So this should remain a separate article. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what the difference is? Is "oratio obliqua" used as a term for a particular analysis of indirect discourse? My background is partly in philosophy, but I've only encountered the term as a synonym for indirect discourse. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to click on the links to the articles in the bibliography of the article, which will explain what the philosophers mean. Of course they are talking about indirect discourse, but it is from a philosophical point of view, which is a whole topic in itself, different from the usual grammatical description. It therefore deserves a separate article. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the links, but I'm not seeing a difference that clearly warrants separate articles. Some of the references even appear to use the two terms interchangeably. Do you generally prefer to keep descriptive and theoretical articles separate? Or is there some particular difference in usage that I'm missing? Botterweg14 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's actually just leave things as they are for now and perhaps revisit the question once the article has grown. With more content it might become clearer that it does or doesn't belong as part of the other article. But for now it's just a little stub and it's not hurting anyone by sitting here being separate. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]