Jump to content

Talk:Nawat grammar: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Construct: new section
m →‎Construct: typos corrected
Line 21: Line 21:
== Construct ==
== Construct ==


On revising the article I have thought it better to remove the grammatical term "construct" and use "possessed (form)" instead. Apart from the fact that may readers might find "construct" difficult because it is unfamiliar to them, the really important reason for the change is that I don't believe the Nawat pattern resembles the original phenomenon to which this term is most usually applied (i.e. Semitic languages) to warrant use of the same term. I myself HAVE used "construct" in the past but have changed my mind on it. Semitic constructs characteristically always precede a "possessor" noun and are never determined (i.e. definite). Nawat possessed forms: (1) are always used with a personal possessor affix; (2) need not be followed by a possessor noun; (3) ARE compatible with determiners. They may be somewhat reminiscent of Semitic-style constructs but I don't think there is enough overlap to conflate such different patterns. --[[User:A R King|A R King]] ([[User talk:A R King|talk]]) 11:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
On revising the article I have thought it better to remove the grammatical term "construct" and use "possessed (form)" instead. Apart from the fact that many readers might find "construct" difficult because it is unfamiliar to them, the really important reason for the change is that I don't believe the Nawat pattern resembles the original phenomenon to which this term is most usually applied (i.e. Semitic languages) enough to warrant use of the same term. I myself HAVE used "construct" in the past but have changed my mind on it. Semitic constructs characteristically always precede a "possessor" noun and are never determined (i.e. definite). Nawat possessed forms: (1) are always used with a personal possessor affix; (2) need not be followed by a possessor noun; (3) ARE compatible with determiners. They may be somewhat reminiscent of Semitic-style constructs but I don't think there is enough overlap to conflate such different patterns. --[[User:A R King|A R King]] ([[User talk:A R King|talk]]) 11:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:31, 18 April 2011

WikiProject iconEndangered languages Unassessed (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconEl Salvador Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMesoamerica C‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconLanguages C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New article

Please see my comments on the discussion page of the Pipil language article. --A R King 10:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on putting in wiki-links though. --A R King 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the links (as best I could, but improvements welcom). --A R King 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work! This truly is a great example of an article (even more special since the language is endangered). Thank you so much for the inspiring read. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments, Zyxoas! --A R King 08:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C quality?

I wonder why this article has been rated C? Any explanations please? --A R King (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construct

On revising the article I have thought it better to remove the grammatical term "construct" and use "possessed (form)" instead. Apart from the fact that many readers might find "construct" difficult because it is unfamiliar to them, the really important reason for the change is that I don't believe the Nawat pattern resembles the original phenomenon to which this term is most usually applied (i.e. Semitic languages) enough to warrant use of the same term. I myself HAVE used "construct" in the past but have changed my mind on it. Semitic constructs characteristically always precede a "possessor" noun and are never determined (i.e. definite). Nawat possessed forms: (1) are always used with a personal possessor affix; (2) need not be followed by a possessor noun; (3) ARE compatible with determiners. They may be somewhat reminiscent of Semitic-style constructs but I don't think there is enough overlap to conflate such different patterns. --A R King (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]