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.
The following probably needs qualifying in some way:
Second person formal and informal pronouns (T-V distinction). For example, vous and tu in French. There is no such distinction in modern English, though Elizabethan English marked the distinction with thou (singular informal) and you (plural or singular formal).
I think we need to at least add the word "standard", but perhaps we also need to restrict the statement some more to exclude poetic and other deliberate use of forms that are archaic in "standard" dialects. Thou, thee and thy (with varying pronunciations) are not uncommon in the dialects of northern England (also Scotland and to some extent the West Country). --Boson (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: "our" is a pronoun too, and not a "determiner". Or: There are different terminologies and instead of just using one, this should be neutral (cf. WP:NPOV) and mention and explain different the different terminologies, like:
ours - pronoun, our - adjective [might come from those times were English "noun" (noun substantive or noun adjective) turned into "noun" (noun substantive, substantive)]
Also: This section becomes more paradoxical, if one keeps in mind that Greek and Latin grammarians didn't have "determiners", but only "pronouns" (and substantives, adjectives etc. of course). Please help improve this article if you can.
Personally I don't think there's a problem, as the bit about determiners concerns only certain theories of modern syntacticians, and so can be stated in the terms that they used, but someone may have some idea how to further improve the section. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the user who keeps posting this stuff is focusing excessively on the possessive pronoun/determiners. The different terminologies for those are already discussed in the "possessive pronouns" section of the article, and in the main articles that it links to. This "theoretical considerations" section refers to the possessive determiners as determiners (rather than as pronouns) merely in the context of modern considerations of the overall determiner/pronoun distinction (not related specifically to possessives). Maybe some kind of footnote would be helpful, but the question of whether possessive determiners are still pronouns because they are derived from pronouns (as opposed to whether determiners in general are the same type of objects as pronouns in general) is not the topic of that section and should not be allowed to distract excessively from that topic. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)