Talk:Pronoun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
 

Pronominals[edit]

I have searched for uses of the term "pronominal" and can't find any that match the discussion in Pronoun#Pronominals. If none can be found, this section should be removed. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: The MoS and the generic he[edit]

A conversation about the Wikipedia Manual of Style's stance on the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thou, thee, thy[edit]

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)

Re section "Theoretical considerations"[edit]

Moving this template from the article:

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016[edit]

Please add

This page is about the part of speech. For the publishing platform, see Pronoun (publishing platform).


38.96.135.6 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 19:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)