![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Please merge any relevant content from Ellipsis (figure of speech) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellipsis (figure of speech). (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-23 08:55Z
How do we know that "More girls were there today than were there yesterday" is not an ellipsis of "More girls were there today than there were girls there yesterday"? If that were the case, then the ellipsis would be optional. Is there really a good case that ellipsis is sometimes mandatory? UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This article, in my opinion, reads pretty poorly. It is written like an essay or piece of homework, not like an encyclopaedia entry, and is more concerned with using as much jargon as is possible than with offering an explanation to the reader. All the sections about "more research needed" have no place in the article. Needs a re-write, I reckon. 109.158.249.60 ( talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that some jargon isn't needed, but right from the preamble the language is far more complex than is necessary. Even the naming of a section "Preliminary Comments" makes it read like an essay. I'm sure the content is fine, but readers want concise, clear explanations, not an essay. Phrases like "With such data in mind, it is apparent that more work on ellipsis needs to be done before any sort of complete inventory of ellipsis mechanisms can be stipulated." don't really fit in. You're not writing for "people who have studied ellipsis", you're writing for people who don't know anything about it, so please write accordingly. Also, on a completely unrelated note, the first example of Null Complement Anaphora seems to have a question mark where a full stop would be more appropriate (in the answer section). 109.158.249.60 ( talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ellipsis occurs in multiple languages, yet this article completely skips any language that is not English. Yes, this is the English language Wikipedia but the topic is part of linguistics which comprises all languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloStraub ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I decided to raise these on the talk page rather than in a big stack of cleanup/dispute tags, though the basic {{
Refimprove}}
is necessary.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
is the following ellipsis grammatically correct?
in actual usage both words occur and have for at least 300 years https://www.wordreference.com/definition/different
-- Backinstadiums ( talk) 10:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The elliptical adverb clause is not present in the article, and I don't see where it would go except as another in the already long list of *assorted ellipses*. I guess I would propose adding more structure (for example, the verb phrase ellipses already seem like a cohesive grouping). An example of this kind of sentence:
But since I am not an expert in the field, I am reticent to impose a homemade structure onto something there's scholarship around. Speedfranklin ( talk) 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The section on theoretical challenges contains a paragraph about the "catena". This section was written by User:Tjo3ya. This user is the researcher who has proposed the "catena" category. This lead to an issue of possible WP:COI / WP:ADVOCACY on the Catena (linguistics) page. The same issue appears here, but only in this section, and probably in many other places.
It should be checked that the paragraph is really relevant, and is not tangentially related self-advertisement. Kaĉjo ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The catena concept appears as the centerpiece in many articles in prominent linguistics journals (Lingua, Syntax, Cognitive Linguistics, Folia Linguistica, etc.). It occupies a central position in the DG article on ellipsis in the Oxford Handboook of Ellipsis. I am reverting it back. Please respond here before reverting my edit.-- Tjo3ya ( talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
All of my concerns, in one fell swoop: 'A more recent approach [to what?] states [QUESTION: Can approaches "state" anything?] that the challenges posed by ellipsis [what presumptive challenges?] to phrase structure theories of syntax [why this interpolation of phrase structure?] are due to the phrase structure component of the grammar. [Says who?] In other words, [< an implicit admission that the preceding sentence is quite convoluted] the difficulties facing phrase structure theories stem from the theoretical prerequisite that syntactic structure be analyzed in terms of the constituents that are associated with constituency grammars (= phrase structure grammars). [How is this relevant to ellipsis?] If the theory departs from phrase structures and acknowledges the dependency structures of dependency grammars[5] instead, the ability to acknowledge a different sort of syntactic unit as fundamental opens the door to a much more parsimonious theory of ellipsis.[citation needed; tangential observation] This [this what??] unit is the catena.[6] The assumption is now that ellipsis mechanisms are eliding catenae, whereby many of these catenae fail to qualify as constituents. [So what? Ellipsis mechanisms can elide virtually anything; catena is not somehow special.] In this manner, [what manner?] the need to posit movement to "rectify" much of the ellipsis data disappears.' [citation needed; relevance unclear; significance is argumentative, not elucidative of anything.] -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Botterweg, I don't specifically recall what you proposed. Whatever it was, please substitute it for the above text. Kaĉjo and I will back you re consensus. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Please merge any relevant content from Ellipsis (figure of speech) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellipsis (figure of speech). (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-23 08:55Z
How do we know that "More girls were there today than were there yesterday" is not an ellipsis of "More girls were there today than there were girls there yesterday"? If that were the case, then the ellipsis would be optional. Is there really a good case that ellipsis is sometimes mandatory? UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This article, in my opinion, reads pretty poorly. It is written like an essay or piece of homework, not like an encyclopaedia entry, and is more concerned with using as much jargon as is possible than with offering an explanation to the reader. All the sections about "more research needed" have no place in the article. Needs a re-write, I reckon. 109.158.249.60 ( talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that some jargon isn't needed, but right from the preamble the language is far more complex than is necessary. Even the naming of a section "Preliminary Comments" makes it read like an essay. I'm sure the content is fine, but readers want concise, clear explanations, not an essay. Phrases like "With such data in mind, it is apparent that more work on ellipsis needs to be done before any sort of complete inventory of ellipsis mechanisms can be stipulated." don't really fit in. You're not writing for "people who have studied ellipsis", you're writing for people who don't know anything about it, so please write accordingly. Also, on a completely unrelated note, the first example of Null Complement Anaphora seems to have a question mark where a full stop would be more appropriate (in the answer section). 109.158.249.60 ( talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ellipsis occurs in multiple languages, yet this article completely skips any language that is not English. Yes, this is the English language Wikipedia but the topic is part of linguistics which comprises all languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloStraub ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I decided to raise these on the talk page rather than in a big stack of cleanup/dispute tags, though the basic {{
Refimprove}}
is necessary.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
is the following ellipsis grammatically correct?
in actual usage both words occur and have for at least 300 years https://www.wordreference.com/definition/different
-- Backinstadiums ( talk) 10:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The elliptical adverb clause is not present in the article, and I don't see where it would go except as another in the already long list of *assorted ellipses*. I guess I would propose adding more structure (for example, the verb phrase ellipses already seem like a cohesive grouping). An example of this kind of sentence:
But since I am not an expert in the field, I am reticent to impose a homemade structure onto something there's scholarship around. Speedfranklin ( talk) 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The section on theoretical challenges contains a paragraph about the "catena". This section was written by User:Tjo3ya. This user is the researcher who has proposed the "catena" category. This lead to an issue of possible WP:COI / WP:ADVOCACY on the Catena (linguistics) page. The same issue appears here, but only in this section, and probably in many other places.
It should be checked that the paragraph is really relevant, and is not tangentially related self-advertisement. Kaĉjo ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The catena concept appears as the centerpiece in many articles in prominent linguistics journals (Lingua, Syntax, Cognitive Linguistics, Folia Linguistica, etc.). It occupies a central position in the DG article on ellipsis in the Oxford Handboook of Ellipsis. I am reverting it back. Please respond here before reverting my edit.-- Tjo3ya ( talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
All of my concerns, in one fell swoop: 'A more recent approach [to what?] states [QUESTION: Can approaches "state" anything?] that the challenges posed by ellipsis [what presumptive challenges?] to phrase structure theories of syntax [why this interpolation of phrase structure?] are due to the phrase structure component of the grammar. [Says who?] In other words, [< an implicit admission that the preceding sentence is quite convoluted] the difficulties facing phrase structure theories stem from the theoretical prerequisite that syntactic structure be analyzed in terms of the constituents that are associated with constituency grammars (= phrase structure grammars). [How is this relevant to ellipsis?] If the theory departs from phrase structures and acknowledges the dependency structures of dependency grammars[5] instead, the ability to acknowledge a different sort of syntactic unit as fundamental opens the door to a much more parsimonious theory of ellipsis.[citation needed; tangential observation] This [this what??] unit is the catena.[6] The assumption is now that ellipsis mechanisms are eliding catenae, whereby many of these catenae fail to qualify as constituents. [So what? Ellipsis mechanisms can elide virtually anything; catena is not somehow special.] In this manner, [what manner?] the need to posit movement to "rectify" much of the ellipsis data disappears.' [citation needed; relevance unclear; significance is argumentative, not elucidative of anything.] -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Botterweg, I don't specifically recall what you proposed. Whatever it was, please substitute it for the above text. Kaĉjo and I will back you re consensus. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)