Talk:Dependent and independent verb forms
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|A fact from Dependent and independent verb forms appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 March 2009, and was viewed approximately 1673 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/March.||
- Thanks! I tried to link to it from all the articles where the concept is mentioned, but if you find any more, please add a link. —Angr 07:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Am not a grammarian, but should this not be titled something like Dependency (grammar)? I don't want to be bold without knowing what I'm talking about, so any responses would be nice to read. --Storkk (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have never, ever, heard this phenomenon referred to as dependency. However, there is a totally unrelated phenomenon in linguistics called "dependency": it refers to things like verbs having to agree with their subjects, prepositions and transitive verbs having to take an object, and things like that. We don't seem to have an article on that, but if we did it could be called Dependency (linguistics). —Angr 07:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Scottish Gaelic verbs
I believe the form deachaidh given for the dependent past form of rach is quite rare, deach is more common. Actually I think rach is a poor choice of verb to illustrate points of grammar, because it is not only very irregular but also has lots of local variations: for example you will find deigheadh (sometimes written deadh), d'reigheadh (sometimes written d'readh), deachadh and rachadh for the dependent conditional (rachadh is also also the independent conditional in places where it is the dependent) and you will find two completely different versions of the imperative (racham/rach[t]ar and theirigeam/theirigear (I've heard it said that you shouldn't be surprised to hear different forms of this verb in neighbouring houses).
ALso, it's all very well contrasting dependent and independent, but because of the way the habitual present tense works people generally see the indicative verb as having 3 modes: independent, relative, and dependent - not just two (relative and independent have identical in tenses other than the habitual present, unless the copula is counted as an exception what do we call the tense other than past or conditional of the copula?). See for example the presentation of verbs at the front of , where Taisbeanach is split into neo-eisimeileach, daimheach, and eisimeileach, not just into neo-eisimeileach and eisimeileach (Cox is our only Gaelic-Gaelic dictionary for primary schools, so that's the grammar all our children are learning).MichealT (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I should also say that the article is misleading in suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that the present habitual is the only tense in which SG retains the distinction between dependent and independent forms: in fat it retains the distinction in all three tenses (caithte/past and cumhach/conditional as well as teachdail/present habitual).
And I feel somewhat disturbed that an article with egregious errors such as this one and the omission of the daimheach (relative) form as a third form intermediate between eisimeilach and neo-eisimileach (which I commented on a year ago) and the bizarre use of the extremely irregulaqt "rach" as an example of something which is common to every regular verb in th elanguage is rated as class "B" - it;'s certainly far better than the "celtic languages" article that's rated as "B" in one project and "C" in another, but how can it rate better than "C"?
Some articles I've seen have been so bad that I've edited them, rather then commenting in talk, but with an article that seems basically good I prefer to comment in "talk" and let the original editor decide what to do, or maybe start a talk page dialogue. But I'm beginning to believe that comments here have no effect and draw no repsonse on the talk page, so next time I look at the article (probably not any time soon) I may just edit it instead of commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michealt (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding earlier. I don't really know much about Scots Gaelic; the information in the article I got from the sources cited. Of course you're welcome to add and change information as you see fit, as long as you cite your sources. It's a wiki! Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Richard A.V. Cox: Brigh nam Facal