Talk:Operator (linguistics)

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

[Untitled]

I am an amateur linguist and I know quite a lot about the subject but there are two major issues here. First, I've never heard about this before. Second, I don't understand a word that is said in this article. It's utterly incomprehensible. 213.220.100.229 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "Sportliche" to "Sportiche" as that is the correct spelling of that author's name. Randomfocus (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this factually correct?

I don't want to wholesale remove this content, but I feel like this page is slightly off the mark as to its definition of an operator. I was under the impression that modals and negation were operators. Can somebody cite this article better, and perhaps expand it? 99.246.79.105 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a syntactician - in fact it has been at least ten years since I've studied syntax in any depth - but I am a linguist, and I have not heard of operator binding or bijection in the manner described here.

I know the cited journal and I know work of one of the cited authors, and the description here seems to fit with what I know of government & binding. I assume that it is a factually correct summary of an issue within a particular theory. On the other hand, this may not be a very notable topic outside that theoretical framework. Perhaps the information could be included in another page (I would suggest Government and binding theory) until such time as it is expanded to become a complete and understandable article on its own. Cnilep (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is factually correct, but I feel more sources could be cited. One might wish for this to be more legible for readers who know little or nothing about generative theory, but, given that "operator" is a single technical term embedded in a quite elaborate system, I don't quite see how that can be done. Neither (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]