![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Expletive was copied or moved into Syntactic expletive with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Expletive was copied or moved into Expletive attributive with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Placeholder_name
shoudl they go somewhere here while we are talking about subjects being replaced where not one. I don't see placeholders in teh grammar page either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.197.28.252 ( talk) 09:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've revised the syntax half of this page rather radically because it struck me as wrongheaded. One example: I can imagine that there do exist recent grammar books that claim that expletive "it" is not a pronoun, but I haven't seen them. For a recent theoretical approach, see Andrew Radford, Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English; for a recent descriptive work, see Huddleston and Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. -- Hoary 10:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't going to touch the non-syntactic stuff, but the earlier statement that "bad-language" expletives "often share the characteristics of lacking meaning and grammatical function" was so blatantly wrong that I had to fiddle with it and I ended up revising it quite a lot. (If you're lost, syntactic expletives definitely do have a grammatical function -- that's precisely why English requires them.) -- Hoary 08:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I do think Wikipedia should include examples with swear words wherever that's necessary or helpful, I don't think the section on expletive attributives needs so many of the examples to be swear words (especially ones as offensive as "bloody," which as I recall, is supposed to be very offensive in the U.K.); and indeed, I think the current set-up suggests (incorrectly) that an inoffensive word like "wretched" is only sort-of an expletive attributive. So, I'm changing it. (Just in case anyone was concerned I was trying to clean Wikipedia of swear words, or anything.) Ruakh 18:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Enough. Please read this and this and any amount of other material about language by qualified, informed linguists, or anyway pay no attention to the santorum about language emitted by know-nothings. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
PS Twenty million, one million -- let's not quibble over niceties as long as the number is big and impressive and far more than the poor frogs can muster. But as for any "one million" figure, it's probably related to this. About which, please read " The 'million word' hoax rolls along". -- Hoary ( talk) 03:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The sense of 'bad language' seems to have extended to another class of words sometimes called expletives - interjections of anger or frustration, even those that aren't swear words, such as "sugar" or "bother". -- Smjg 16:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, bloody is not offensive at all in England, in fact its considered to be rather old fashioned. For example, its not a word you'd hear at my local skate park, where I can assure you that the use of expletives has increased to the point that not only is there at least one expletive between each word in the intended sentence, but indeed many of the words also contain expletives between syllables. Use of the word bloody is more likely to be found in distinguished gentlemens clubs in London than in the conversations of young people. So I would be inclined to leave the phrase "as is" as it achieves its goal and is not offensive to the degree required to justify removal from this site (some of us quite like the human imperfections of wikipedia (even though it should have been spelt wikipaedia !!). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (UTC) ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 July 2006
Where in the wide world of sports did it go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziggythehamster ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Forgive my ignorance, but should this article really be in Category:Richard Nixon? If so, what is the rationale? Silly rabbit 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Whereas it makes no sense to ask what the it refers to in "It is important that you work hard for the exam",
This isnt true, consider the following
"It is important" "What is important?" "That you work hard for the exam" 81.79.81.15 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." Therefore I have removed the dashes and asterisks in the article.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As currently written, this article treats several phenomena whose main similarity is their name. While this would be appropriate for a dictionary, it is not the way Wikipedia articles are arranged.
Arguably what this article calls "expletive attributives" and what it calls "bad language" are the same or closely-related topics. I do not think one could seriously argue, though, that "syntactic expletives" are the same phenomenon. Furthermore, the current lead section provides an etymology and list of definitions of the word rather than an overview of the various phenomena, offering further evidence of the article's problematic arrangement.
I would recommend that a new article, possibly called "Syntactic expletive", be created, and that "Expletive" be re-written to treat just expletive attributives and possibly profanity (though the page Profanity already exists). Hatnotes should be added to each page directing readers to the other page.
Another option would be to create three new pages, treating these three meanings, and to turn this page into a DAB. Would anyone like to argue for this option or to suggest another one? Cnilep ( talk) 03:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It was around like 200 meters high.
If you are listening to this, Miss Newman, bugger off.
In light of 80.191.138.163's suggestion, I have made Syntactic expletive and Expletive attributive separate pages, and included Profanity as a third disambiguated link on this page. Cnilep ( talk) 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Expletive was copied or moved into Syntactic expletive with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Expletive was copied or moved into Expletive attributive with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Placeholder_name
shoudl they go somewhere here while we are talking about subjects being replaced where not one. I don't see placeholders in teh grammar page either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.197.28.252 ( talk) 09:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've revised the syntax half of this page rather radically because it struck me as wrongheaded. One example: I can imagine that there do exist recent grammar books that claim that expletive "it" is not a pronoun, but I haven't seen them. For a recent theoretical approach, see Andrew Radford, Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English; for a recent descriptive work, see Huddleston and Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. -- Hoary 10:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't going to touch the non-syntactic stuff, but the earlier statement that "bad-language" expletives "often share the characteristics of lacking meaning and grammatical function" was so blatantly wrong that I had to fiddle with it and I ended up revising it quite a lot. (If you're lost, syntactic expletives definitely do have a grammatical function -- that's precisely why English requires them.) -- Hoary 08:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I do think Wikipedia should include examples with swear words wherever that's necessary or helpful, I don't think the section on expletive attributives needs so many of the examples to be swear words (especially ones as offensive as "bloody," which as I recall, is supposed to be very offensive in the U.K.); and indeed, I think the current set-up suggests (incorrectly) that an inoffensive word like "wretched" is only sort-of an expletive attributive. So, I'm changing it. (Just in case anyone was concerned I was trying to clean Wikipedia of swear words, or anything.) Ruakh 18:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Enough. Please read this and this and any amount of other material about language by qualified, informed linguists, or anyway pay no attention to the santorum about language emitted by know-nothings. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
PS Twenty million, one million -- let's not quibble over niceties as long as the number is big and impressive and far more than the poor frogs can muster. But as for any "one million" figure, it's probably related to this. About which, please read " The 'million word' hoax rolls along". -- Hoary ( talk) 03:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The sense of 'bad language' seems to have extended to another class of words sometimes called expletives - interjections of anger or frustration, even those that aren't swear words, such as "sugar" or "bother". -- Smjg 16:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, bloody is not offensive at all in England, in fact its considered to be rather old fashioned. For example, its not a word you'd hear at my local skate park, where I can assure you that the use of expletives has increased to the point that not only is there at least one expletive between each word in the intended sentence, but indeed many of the words also contain expletives between syllables. Use of the word bloody is more likely to be found in distinguished gentlemens clubs in London than in the conversations of young people. So I would be inclined to leave the phrase "as is" as it achieves its goal and is not offensive to the degree required to justify removal from this site (some of us quite like the human imperfections of wikipedia (even though it should have been spelt wikipaedia !!). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (UTC) ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 July 2006
Where in the wide world of sports did it go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziggythehamster ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Forgive my ignorance, but should this article really be in Category:Richard Nixon? If so, what is the rationale? Silly rabbit 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Whereas it makes no sense to ask what the it refers to in "It is important that you work hard for the exam",
This isnt true, consider the following
"It is important" "What is important?" "That you work hard for the exam" 81.79.81.15 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." Therefore I have removed the dashes and asterisks in the article.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As currently written, this article treats several phenomena whose main similarity is their name. While this would be appropriate for a dictionary, it is not the way Wikipedia articles are arranged.
Arguably what this article calls "expletive attributives" and what it calls "bad language" are the same or closely-related topics. I do not think one could seriously argue, though, that "syntactic expletives" are the same phenomenon. Furthermore, the current lead section provides an etymology and list of definitions of the word rather than an overview of the various phenomena, offering further evidence of the article's problematic arrangement.
I would recommend that a new article, possibly called "Syntactic expletive", be created, and that "Expletive" be re-written to treat just expletive attributives and possibly profanity (though the page Profanity already exists). Hatnotes should be added to each page directing readers to the other page.
Another option would be to create three new pages, treating these three meanings, and to turn this page into a DAB. Would anyone like to argue for this option or to suggest another one? Cnilep ( talk) 03:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It was around like 200 meters high.
If you are listening to this, Miss Newman, bugger off.
In light of 80.191.138.163's suggestion, I have made Syntactic expletive and Expletive attributive separate pages, and included Profanity as a third disambiguated link on this page. Cnilep ( talk) 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)