User talk:Doric Loon/Archive 2023
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doric Loon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2020 | Archive 2021 | Archive 2022 | Archive 2023 |
technical Q re grammar
Do you know of any Wikipedia article describing the type of infinitive verb that complements an oblique object, e.g., "We'll have them do it"? Neither the causative article nor the morphosyntactic alignment article mentions the type of S-V-O-A-V dynamic I used to teach under my former curriculum's (subject) have someone do something rubric that required students & instructors to recognize the syntax without demanding any linguistic analysis.
I have my own protologism for such a verb – namely, a causative object complement, as distinguished from (1) a perceptual object complement in an example like "I saw the tree fall" or (2) a permissive object complement in an example like "I'll let you go."
Otherwise, I haven't come across any attempts to categorize what would be a direct object if a noun were substituted for a verb, e.g., "It gave us fits" versus "It made us cry". Have I reinvented the wheel with my protologisms? If so, which Wikipedia articles or other sources have beaten me to it? Hope you're well, and thanks for the assist. Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Kent Dominic, good question. From a historical perspective, this is certainly an infinitive construction, though some synchronic analyses of modern English might analyze that differently - but I'm really less interested in those myself. These examples have a bare infinitive, but the same thing is found with the full infinitive: "I believe him to be a complete fool" or "Do you want me to hit him for you?" The finite verb in these sentences has a valency that puts together a direct object and an infinitive in such a way that the object is simultaneously an implicit subject of the infinitive (though only semantically, since it has an object form and a non-finite verb doesn't have a subject as such.) I would call this an ACI, because it is exactly parallel to the Latin construction. And the answer to your main question is that Wikipedia already discusses the phenomenon (in Latin, English and Spanish) at Accusative and infinitive. I think you will find very similar constructions in, say, Danish. Doric Loon (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Extremly helpful. Thanks. In my mind, both the bare infinitive and the full infinitive constitute the same category of XYZ verb that complements an object in the foregoing examples. My remaining problem: accusative is well-defined re its operation vis-a-vis a transitive verb in an ordinary SVO context, but not so well-defined re its operation as either a transitive or intransitive verb that complements an oblique object a la "I saw my sister leave." In my practical experience, people tend to say "I saw my sister [as she was] leaving," which has a virtually idental semantic meaning but differs syntactically (i.e., infinitive versus participle).
- The ACI article here is spot on regarding its description of the dynamic, but it doesn't identify a term for an XYZ_verb_as_a_bare_or_full_infinitive_that_complements_an_accusative_object. Such a term needs to be broad enough to additionally cover an example like "I asked my sister to leave." I'm basically trying to create a sensible answer for ESL students who ask why it's "I saw my sister leave" rather than "I saw my sister leaves." Describing accusative relations would spin their heads since accusative, IMHO, is pretty arcane terminology. Calling it a type of perceptual object complement might be similarly arcane but at least gives people a fighting chance to construe what perceptual contextually implies while object and complement are widely understood terms, at least in Southeast Asian curricula for ESL studies.
- In a similar vein, I shun the terms indirect object and direct object as being counterintuitive for the uninitiated and insufficiently descriptive for my purposes. Instead, I use transitive object and transitive object complement. So, a
direct objecttransitive object complement could be either a noun (e.g., "I asked him a question) or a verb (e.g., "I asked him to leave"; "I let the phone ring"). All of this to avoid using a term like "accusative", especially when unlearned discussions treat accusative verb and "transitive verb" as synonymous. Also weird: a Wikipedia search on "accuastive verb" redirects to ambitransitive verb. Go figure. :/ Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC) - I just read an article, presumably by linguistics Ph.Ds, that describes "Marcia" as being an embedded subject in the "Cindy believes Marcia to be a genius" example. Maybe the authors skipped the lectures on accusative and object? Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Kent Dominic, as I already said, I tend to approach things from a historical and comparative perspective, meaning that I explain English phenomena in terms of their development out of Old English and in terms of contrasts with other European languages. Both of those aspects place "him" clearly in the category "accusative", which is a well-defined and satisfactory concept. Since my students are Germans, whose native tongue has a closely related and still fully-fledged accusative, this is helpful to them too. But of course, much modern English linguistics is only interested in analyzing English synchronically and in its own terms, which is perfectly sensible for many purposes, and since the English case system has mostly disintigrated, other categories may seem more useful. I read a paper that postulated that in modern English, the forms "me, him, her" are now the neutral base forms, and "I, he, she" are specially marked subject forms. Because when you say "Who's there?" you will get an answer like "Me", which is not an object. So an embedded subject might be a way to analyze this. I would not want to see such linguistic experiments highlighted too strongly in Wikipedia, which should mainly follow mainstream categories, but there's no harm in it being a footnote. Any chance you can send me that article? Doric Loon (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm with you on everything you just said, and I particularly agree that the accusative case is well-defined, but it only goes so far. If you come across a term - traditional or modern - corresponding to a verb form that complements an accusative object, please let me know. Two day's of internet sleuthing turned up nil. Is there such a German language term for that kind of verb?
- This is the article I mentioned. The excerpted part is toward the bottom of page 5. FWIW, I take a jaundiced view of linguistic renderings such as raising (as well as promoting and demoting) lexical items as applied to transformational grammar. IMHO: new syntax = new syntax analysis regardless of the prior analyis. Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Kent Dominic, as I already said, I tend to approach things from a historical and comparative perspective, meaning that I explain English phenomena in terms of their development out of Old English and in terms of contrasts with other European languages. Both of those aspects place "him" clearly in the category "accusative", which is a well-defined and satisfactory concept. Since my students are Germans, whose native tongue has a closely related and still fully-fledged accusative, this is helpful to them too. But of course, much modern English linguistics is only interested in analyzing English synchronically and in its own terms, which is perfectly sensible for many purposes, and since the English case system has mostly disintigrated, other categories may seem more useful. I read a paper that postulated that in modern English, the forms "me, him, her" are now the neutral base forms, and "I, he, she" are specially marked subject forms. Because when you say "Who's there?" you will get an answer like "Me", which is not an object. So an embedded subject might be a way to analyze this. I would not want to see such linguistic experiments highlighted too strongly in Wikipedia, which should mainly follow mainstream categories, but there's no harm in it being a footnote. Any chance you can send me that article? Doric Loon (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The article The Tron Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability, speedy deleted already in 2013, then revived after an account with the name of the church wrote up on it.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 11:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @ User:LilianaUwU. Thanks for the heads-up. Please note that although I created this article, it was originally on a different topic, the historical Tron Church. When it became redundant due to a merge, I blanked the page and requested its deletion. Since then, others have used the space to create what looks like an advert for a splinter group. So I am perfectly happy for you to go ahead with the deletion. Doric Loon (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Merging Origin of speech into Origin of language
There has been no activity in the discussion for 3 months, and there probably won't be activity any time soon. I suggest that you close the discussion and perform the merger, the discussion does meet all of the criteria needed to close and merge; per WP:MERGECLOSE. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The article An Leabhar Mòr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The only source in the article is the subject of the article itself. Does not appear to pass the book notability guideline.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of History of linguistic prescription in English for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of linguistic prescription in English until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well thank you, @Gerda Arendt!
November Articles for creation backlog drive
Hello Doric Loon:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
"Composed of" trivia
My prediction was right that the comprised of police, aka Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), would be compelled to have a go at the composed of phrase in the pertinent edits @English phrasal verbs. I'm content to have phrased it according to my obsessively picky standards of semantic and grammatical precision and to now utter a big "whatever" while leaving others to decide whether their own obsessive behaviors (e.g., re pet peeve wordings of perfective participles versus continuative participles) is worth their waste investment of time. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
More trivia: The Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition #2 denotes "comprise (transitive verb)" as "COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE: 'about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women.' —Jimmy Carter. It also has an entry for "comprised of (idiom)" defined as "made up of". Indeed, I used that dictionary as a reference for corresponding entries in my own book which, of course, resulted in vastly superior defintions vis-à-vis the ones given above. ;) Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hehe, yes, I noticed your prophecy and its fulfilment. He really does seem to have made a life's mission out of this! Doric Loon (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Doric Loon, help to improve article
Hello Doric Loon, can you help me to improve article Draft:João Ferreira Sardo. It's biography about a regional personality that the local historical sociaty is working on. Thank you for your time. GafanhadaNazaré (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a look at it. Doric Loon (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)