Jump to content

Noun: Revision history

External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

12 June 2024

30 May 2024

29 May 2024

15 April 2024

5 April 2024

31 March 2024

24 February 2024

22 February 2024

21 February 2024

14 February 2024

12 February 2024

4 February 2024

  • curprev 01:1701:17, 4 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 23,748 bytes −107‎ Undid revision 1202959555 by Tony1 (talk)The intention is laudable; the execution falls short esp. when the second example is inaccurate (i.e., there's only one NP in "You became their teacher"). Besides, sight-wise, the bolding and underlining makes the verbiage hard to read. undo Tag: Undo

3 February 2024

2 February 2024

  • curprev 22:1322:13, 2 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 24,043 bytes −6‎ Undid revision 1202320189 by Kent Dominic (talk). See talk for detailed reasoning, showing an excerpt from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language; in brief, both the subject and the object are "arguments of the predicate" (as articles linked here make clear), so the punctuation and other details in this sentence should not give the wrong impression that only the object is such an argument. (☺!) undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 13:4313:43, 2 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 24,049 bytes +6‎ →‎Noun phrases: Semantic clarity. See talk page for rationale and any further discussion. undo Tag: Reverted
  • curprev 10:5010:50, 2 February 2024‎ Tony1 talk contribs‎ 24,043 bytes −21‎ No edit summary undo
  • curprev 07:3107:31, 2 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 24,064 bytes +2‎ →‎Noun phrases: The previous editor still hasn't grasped what he himself wikilinked – though I even QUOTED one (of several) relevant portions in an edit summary. Once more, class: according to that article, and other sources that could readily be adduced, both the SUBJECT and the OBJECT are included among arguments of the predicate. That's why the detailing that I now restore is exactly correct (retaining "a", "an" ☺). READ the article, check Huddleston and Pullum (Chapter 4), think. ┬┬┬┬┬┬┬┬ undo
  • curprev 05:5505:55, 2 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 24,062 bytes +1‎ Undid & further emended revision 1202169781 by 49.190.56.203 (talk) The parenthetical interpolation, "(or some other argument of the predicate)" most definitiely doesn't apply distributively to a SUBJECT, which the unemended text equivocally states. undo
  • curprev 05:1905:19, 2 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 24,061 bytes +9‎ Reverting what was not a "simple tweak" at all: at the very link supplied (to Argument_(linguistics)#Arguments_and_adjuncts) we find this text: "The subject phrase and object phrase are the two most frequently occurring arguments of verbal predicates ... Jill likes Jack. ... Jill, for example, is the subject argument of the predicate likes, and Jack is its object argument." Read, learn, think, learn surprising new facts, be corrected, think again, edit; repeat as needed ... then ... STOP! ■ ■ ■ undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 05:0205:02, 2 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 24,052 bytes +9‎ Corrections. undo
  • curprev 04:3704:37, 2 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ m 24,043 bytes −9‎ A simple tweak to an item of syntax and punctuation together with a summary sans recherché discursivenes, ad hominem bon mots, officious proclamations re the edit's exquisitely unsurpassable fabulousness, and with neither immaterial profusions re the edit's learned basis nor bumptious prattling re other editors' presumptive squeamishness or unthinkgness or unscholarliness to the contrary. Such pedanticisms would be ill-suited to the purpose of a straightforward edit summary. undo Tag: Reverted

1 February 2024

  • curprev 23:0023:00, 1 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 24,052 bytes +896‎ →‎Noun phrases: Rigour as opposed to ill-informed partisan rejection of perfectly mainstream terminology; to promote catholicity I have retained all the same links but sequestered controversial details in a note, including detailed referencing of CGEL – the current dominant grammar of the English language, linguistically informed and universally respected. Editors: only make alterations here if you REALLY know what you're doing; these are core linguistics articles, not jousting arenas. ■☺ undo
  • curprev 13:1513:15, 1 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 23,156 bytes −74‎ Undid revision 1201795930 by 49.190.56.203 (talk)See second prior edit summary. undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 11:0011:00, 1 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 23,230 bytes +74‎ →‎Noun phrases: Edited to nullify unschooled objections. Note that "become", like "be" and several other verbs, does indeed take a (non-object, or predicative) complement – which is generally either an NP or an AP. Google is your friend here, readily delivering hits like this from learnèd works: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZR6yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA619&dq="complement+of+become+must+be+either+AP+or+NP" . Best not to assume that you ar the sole repository of knowledge: a hard lesson, for some. ←↕ undo Tag: Reverted
  • curprev 05:5105:51, 1 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 23,156 bytes +47‎ →‎Noun phrases: Intransitive verbs have neither objects nor complements whether by linguistic analysis or just plain grammatical convention. undo
  • curprev 05:4305:43, 1 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 23,109 bytes +4‎ →‎Noun phrases: Rm original reasearch: taxonomical interpolation re "non-object complement" of a verb. I.e., verbs are improperly construed as having complements of any variety. undo
  • curprev 05:2405:24, 1 February 2024‎ Kent Dominic talk contribs‎ 23,105 bytes −61‎ →‎Noun phrases: Rm unnecessary verbiage (i.e., the "which..." clause whose syntax is equivocally limited to "pronoun" rather than also to the contextually indicated nouns) that is mooted by the meaning expressed via "headed". undo
  • curprev 04:5404:54, 1 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 23,166 bytes +54‎ →‎Alienable vs. inalienable nouns: Added this at the start: "Illustrating the wide range of possible classifying principles for nouns, ..."; this is desirable because it's just one of many classifying principles, and the reader should be informed that those too are "out there"; some adjustments, following that addition. undo
  • curprev 04:4604:46, 1 February 2024‎ 49.190.56.203 talk‎ 23,112 bytes +44‎ →‎Noun phrases: Reworked this strangely contested paragraph: completeness (yes, if we give an example with NP complement of a verb – as we should – it's best to list that among the roles of an NP); efficient and strictly accurate wording throughout; suitable qualification where anything considered too recherché must be omitted ("usually", because someone may be squeamish about NP as head of an NP, etc.); tightly worded and tidily presented examples that cover all of the roles listed. ◘○○◘○○◘ undo

31 January 2024

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun"