User talk:Tjo3ya: Difference between revisions
Kent Dominic (talk | contribs) →periphrasitc tenses: new section |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I wasn't here in 2012 to see Doric Loon's contribution to [[finite verb]], which you subsequently deleted. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finite_verb&diff=next&oldid=500350981 here]). If I had been around then, I would have raced you to it. Since I wasn't, I credit your reversion and subsequent comment on the '''Finite verb''' talk page. Retrospectively, I see his point, but he failed to back it up with linguistic clarity (or bona fide references). Ironically, Doric Loon reverted one of my edits that entailed a reference to a ''to-infinitive phrase'', which he decried as a linguistically suspect term. I credited him for his eye: ''to-infinitive phrase'' is a term that I coined and defined within my own lexicon; I had intended my edit to include the term [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/to-infinitive to-infinitive], which is a widely-recognized term but unartfully composed as well as inadequately defined by all attempts I've seen. Cheers. --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC) |
I wasn't here in 2012 to see Doric Loon's contribution to [[finite verb]], which you subsequently deleted. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finite_verb&diff=next&oldid=500350981 here]). If I had been around then, I would have raced you to it. Since I wasn't, I credit your reversion and subsequent comment on the '''Finite verb''' talk page. Retrospectively, I see his point, but he failed to back it up with linguistic clarity (or bona fide references). Ironically, Doric Loon reverted one of my edits that entailed a reference to a ''to-infinitive phrase'', which he decried as a linguistically suspect term. I credited him for his eye: ''to-infinitive phrase'' is a term that I coined and defined within my own lexicon; I had intended my edit to include the term [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/to-infinitive to-infinitive], which is a widely-recognized term but unartfully composed as well as inadequately defined by all attempts I've seen. Cheers. --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Invitation to continue discussion (Ellipsis (linguistics)) == |
|||
{{Talkback|Talk:Ellipsis_(linguistics)#POV_issue_with_catenas|ts=18:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)}}[[User:Kaĉjo|Kaĉjo]] ([[User talk:Kaĉjo|talk]]) 18:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:44, 21 November 2021
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
periphrasitc tenses
I wasn't here in 2012 to see Doric Loon's contribution to finite verb, which you subsequently deleted. (See here). If I had been around then, I would have raced you to it. Since I wasn't, I credit your reversion and subsequent comment on the Finite verb talk page. Retrospectively, I see his point, but he failed to back it up with linguistic clarity (or bona fide references). Ironically, Doric Loon reverted one of my edits that entailed a reference to a to-infinitive phrase, which he decried as a linguistically suspect term. I credited him for his eye: to-infinitive phrase is a term that I coined and defined within my own lexicon; I had intended my edit to include the term to-infinitive, which is a widely-recognized term but unartfully composed as well as inadequately defined by all attempts I've seen. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to continue discussion (Ellipsis (linguistics))
Message added 18:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.