Talk:Nawat grammar: Difference between revisions
→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 |
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
Endangered languages Unassessed (inactive) | |||||||
|
El Salvador Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Mesoamerica C‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
Languages C‑class | ||||||||||
|
New article
Please see my comments on the discussion page of the Pipil language article. --A R King 10:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm still working on putting in wiki-links though. --A R King 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've completed the links (as best I could, but improvements welcom). --A R King 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Thank you for your kind comments, Zyxoas! --A R King 08:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
C quality?
I wonder why this article has been rated C? Any explanations please? --A R King (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
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)