This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexnollola.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmnahEssa. Peer reviewers: AmnahEssa.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
READ THIS!
Just in order to keep the editors calm, we know that Japanese does not have, in fact, "two classes of adjectives", but noun-like qualifiers ("na-adjectives") and stative verbs ("i-adjectives"). The "two classes" in the article are a common and very useful simplification. There's definitely a problem with the "correct" view vs. the "traditional" view. IIRC even Japanese language and Japanese grammar contradict each other on this respect. -- Pablo D. Flores 12:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)in other words, there are different speech that is composed by a person
This needs attention badly, but from the start, I think the Japanese examples are nonsense. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but shinsetsu is a "na-adjective" or a "nominal adjective" or an "adjectival noun" (or whatever), and that doesn't change no matter what particle you put after it, ne? Shinsetsu ni is an adverbial *phrase*, not a word, and ni is an adposition, not a part-of-speech marker! -- Pablo D. Flores 14:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article seems pretty far afield from real liguisting research. For example, the parts of speech listed are pretty Latin-based (most Asian languages, for example, don't have anything that can be reasonably called an "adjective", and most languages do not distinguish adverbs, even European ones). Likewise, I don't think the following sentence is true:
For example, "set" can be a noun (such as a set in mathematics), a verb (set it down), or an adjective (the trap is set).
That is, it is clearly true that English words are flexible, and many other languages are less flexible, but I don't think the categroical statement that other languages generally follow the one word/one part of speech rule really holds. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
One example of a dodgy part of speech concept is the preposition. It's definition has a word order requirement in it. This results in the need of another part of speech concept postposition, which plays the same role as preposition, but has a different word order requirement.
The situation is anologous to calling an adjective something else if it comes after the noun it qualifies.
Also there may be a case for regarding a preposition/postposition as a different part of speech depending on whether the phrase it heads acts as an adjective, adverb or indirect object.
Is preposition a bona-fide lexical category? Or does P stand for proposition or postposition?
--- User:Karl Palmen
I'm disambiguating Conjunction, and there is no page on the grammatical sense. Should this link to Grammatical conjunction, or is that phrase not used? If not, is another phrase used, or should we say Conjunction (grammar)? I will leave a link to the disambiguation page for now. — Toby 19:33 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
Regarding the addition of circumpositions: it's OK to add them, but the example given in the edit summary is not a circumposition, it's a circumfix. The ge- and -t of gemacht are grammatical bound morphemes. I think the French ne ... pas would qualify as a circumposition. I don't know of any other languages that have them, though, and even in French ne is often deleted when pas follows. -- Pablo D. Flores 10:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for the poor example. I guess I mixed things up. A better example is "von ... aus" as in "_Von_ der Burg _aus_ hast Du einen guten Überblick über die Stadt." (From the castle, you have a good overview over the city.) C.J. 24 May 2005. 17:21 (MEST)
How did we wind up with this article title? It seems awfully ambiguous for an article title and I don't quite see the problem with using word class. Can someone explain why it should stay under the current title?
Peter Isotalo 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to "Part of speech". This is the usual term, much more common than "lexical category". Many of the references given in the article use the term "part of speech". I am missing the justification for the use of the term "lexical category". Try searching Google scholar for "part of speech" vs Google scholar for "lexical category" vs Google scholar for "word class". -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Also notice the existence of Category:Parts of speech, created on 31 July 2004. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel like it is important to note that when discussing word classes in a linguistic sense, there is a very large difference between part of speech and lexical categories. A lexical category is a class of words that notional content (or physical meaning in the world). This is limited to nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and sometimes prepositions and pronouns. Other categories that would be considered parts of speech, such as conjunctions, determiners, and auxiliaries, are included in what is known as functional categories, or words/morphological elements that only serve a grammatical purpose. For instance, the word "the" lacks any kind of meaning without the noun it modifies, just as "and" is meaningless outside of its role in connecting phrases. Because these words do not have any meaning in the world and only serve to make the sentence grammatical, they cannot be considered lexical. Therefore, I would suggest that either lexical category be removed from the "also called" section in the beginning paragraph and given a section later on in the article or it be given its own separate page entirely because as it stands it implies a false synonymy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.14.99 ( talk) 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Parts of speech may seem ambiguous but that's because every nation every country and every language has a different way of using language. Each language switches its placement of, for example, nouns and adjectives. §§§§ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Acole511 (
talk •
contribs) 20:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
But I agree that this is about "word classes" and not about "part of speech"! which would be "predicate, subject, object". Correspondingly it links to the German page " de:Wortart" (type of word) and not to " de:Satz (Grammatik)" where the functional units of the phrase are discussed. — MFH: Talk 10:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Generative grammar defines lexical categories as 4 possibilities resultant from the binary features [+N] and [+V]. Underthis schema nouns are [+N,-V], verbs [-N,+V], adjective [+N,+V], and prepositions [-N, -V]. There are no lexical categories other than these. With this understanding one can better explain the relationship relationship, such as the fact that both nouns and adjectives require case or for creating more accurate context-sensitive rules such as the of-insertion rule in English where null=> of / [+N]_NP, where NP stands for noun phrase. If possible can the linguists who do the pages considered linguistics stub confirm this and provide a better written and more expansive section?
I'm a sophomore in college admittedly with poor English skills, but trying to improve. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? I am not criticizing the poriginal authors of this article, who know much more than I, but I will say that the first sentence of this article contains three words that I, and probably the majority of the population aren't familiar with: 'lexical', 'syntactic' and 'morphological'. I have learned that often the best way to quickly learn a subject in Wiki is to go back to the original article (view history tab) before it became polluted. I applaude the original authors and ask those who are concerned with exacting definitions to remember that approximation is OK early in these articles for the sake of the general public. I am not completely sure but it seems to me that highly educated people (or people who think they are) often try to use WIKI as an archival reference manual, or something to that effect. Wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.66.61 ( talk) 13:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
To which of those eight word classes do articles belong? -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"defined four main categories of words: [...] These 15 were" looks like a typing error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.199.229 ( talk) 06:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Indo European langages have the common denominator that there is nine part of speeches. In this article numbers are forgotten. Ex: four, the third, zero etc. If English doesn't count numbers as part of speeches - where do they then belong ? (For instance Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian - languages that not are Indo European, lackes prepositions) Boeing720 ( talk) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Answer: going back to very old books on English grammar, we find "noun numeral" being treated as a separate part of speech, same as in Latin ("nomen numerale"). Nowadays, many English grammarists conflate numerals with the parts of speech whose functions they serve: nouns (cardinal numerals, e.g., "one", and collective numerals, e.g., "dozen"), adjectives (ordinal numerals, e.g., "first", and multiplier numerals, e.g., "single") and adverbs (multiplicative numerals, e.g., "once", and distributive numerals, e.g., "singly"). 141.239.243.190 ( talk) 09:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Early on, the article refers to a list of PoS 'above.' There is no list above that statement that I can find. My guess is is that there once was a list with 1.verb, 2. noun etc. that got moved or deleted but the reference to that list got overlooked. Right? 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article states that (Indo-?) European don't have nominal classifiers (linguistics. The linked-to article gives at least one example: head of cattle and the French equivalent (perhaps source). 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 09:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that parts of this article could be extended and also more concisely elaborated on. In addition English, it would be helpful to introduce sections on the word classes in other languages. Perhaps there can be a section added to explain the distinction between lexical and grammatical categories. To expand on the paragraph about how certain words in English can fall into multiple categories, it might be helpful to explain how to determine the word class (via tests or clues) if a word has an ambiguous category. Some citations are also missing in the latter half of the article. Cnchia ( talk) 02:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
In this article, half of the information is stated twice. I'm not sure if they're the same or just very similar, but I don't want to accidentally delete information that wasn't actually duplicated. Zombiedude347 ( talk) 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
What was called "traditional" here, is not traditional. Traditional tems - excluding modern (= degenerative, below simply younger) English terms - are:
(Ancient) Greek | ὄνομα (ónoma) | ἐπιϑετικόν (epithetikón) | ἀντωνυμία (antōnymía), ἀντονομασίᾱ (antonomasíā) | ἄρϑρον (árthron) | μετοχῆ (metokhḗ) | ῥῆμα (rhêma) | ἐπίρρημα (epírrhēma) | πρόθεσις (próthesis) | σύνδεσμος (sýndesmos) | ἐπιφώνημα (epiphṓnēma) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Latin | nomen | [nomen] substantivum | [nomen] adjectivum | pronomen | articulus | {[nomen] numerale} | participium | verbum | adverbium | praepositio | conjunctio | interjectio |
modern Latin-German terms | Nomen | Substantiv | Adjektiv | Pronomen | Artikel | {Numerale} | Partizip | Verb | Adverb | Präposition | Konjunktion | Interjektion |
modern German terms | Namenwort, Nennwort | Dingwort, Hauptwort | Beiwort, Eigenschaftswort | Fürwort | Geschlechtswort, Begleiter | {Zahlwort} | Mittelwort | Zeitwort, Tätigkeitswort | Umstandswort, Nebenwort | Verhältniswort, Vorwort | Bindewort | Ausrufewort, Empfindungswort |
English (older) | noun | [noun] substantive | [noun] adjective | pronoun | article | {numeral} | participle | verb | adverb | preposition | conjunction | interjection |
English (younger) | noun | adjective | pronoun ‡¹ | article | (numeral) | (participle) | verb | adverb | preposition | conjunction | interjection |
Notes:
-15:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.123.218 ( talk)
-10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This is mainly to User:Erutuon: you previously added text and a translation from the Art of Grammar, which leads to a listing of the parts of speech. What I was wondering was whether it goes on to describe the particular parts of speech in the terms given in that section of our article - i.e. do the descriptions given in our text match the original Greek descriptions, as is implied (or are they just some editor's own commentary)? And if they do match, is there a description in the original text for article, which we currently have missing? W. P. Uzer ( talk) 11:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
ἄρθρον ἐστὶ μέρος λόγου πτωτικόν, προτασσόμενον +καὶ+ ὑποτασσόμενον τῆς κλίσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων. καὶ ἔστι προτακτικὸν μὲν ὁ, ὑποτακτικὸν δὲ ὅς. ::παρέπεται δὲ αὐτῶι τρία· γένη, ἀριθμοί, πτώσεις. ::γένη μὲν οὖν εἰσι τρία· ὁ ποιητής, ἡ ποίησις, τὸ ποίημα. ::ἀριθμοὶ τρεῖς· +ἑνικός+, δυϊκός, πληθυντικός· ἑνικὸς μὲν ὁ ἡ τό, δυϊκὸς δὲ τώ τά +, πληθυντικὸς δὲ οἱ αἱ τά. ::πτώσεις δὲ ὁ τοῦ τῶι τόν ὦ, +ἡ τῆς τῆι τήν ὦ.
Because of "Article (árthron): a declinable part of speech, taken to include the definite article, but also the basic relative pronoun":
I've just read in (younger) grammar book that in old Greek terms the interrogative pronouns and indefinite pronouns were part of the "noun (ónoma)" and not of the "pronoun (antōnymía)". So there are other differences as well, and thus it might be better to omit such differences resp. to just note that these classes sometimes differ from modern understandings.
-
91.63.231.162 (
talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
"Aristotle added another class, "conjunctions" [sýndesmos], which included not only the words known today as conjunctions, but also pronouns, prepositions, and the article."
There's a reference for that, but that's more than questionable:
Thus: Correctly it's most likely that there are different interpretations of Aristoteles' terms, some that it's this way, some others say it's that way. So the best way should be to write something like "There are different interpretations of Aristoteles' terms. Some that it's this way, some others say it's that way." in the article.
PS - might also relate to the above discussion and to the following statements in the article: "Article (árthron): a declinable part of speech, taken to include the definite article, but also the basic relative pronoun" and "The Latin grammarian Priscian (fl. 500 AD) modified the above eightfold system, excluding "article"". Isn't the Latin "qui, quae, quod" the basic relative pronoun of Latin? So: In case of Greek "article" and "pronoun" might mean something different in antique times than they mean nowadays, but in case of Latin they mean the same: Quintilian and Priscian exclude the article from Latin, but they don't exclude the Latin relative pronoun.
-02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC), PS: 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The introduction has been vandalized to the extent it makes no sense. It is more than just the last edit. Some-body please clean it up. Kdammers ( talk) 16:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a thorough explanation of the difference between adverbs and adjectives would help. Parts of speech can sometimes get confusing especially with adverbs and adjectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boorumr ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Original context in lede:
I have no clue what this phrase means in standard English. Help? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 20:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It is noted that pronouns remain a closed class (a class of words rarely if ever added to), but now with the sudden affection of "76 genders" and asking "what your pronouns are", will that remain true? There should be a section mentioning pronouns will become an open class with designer genders. 174.114.77.231 ( talk) 02:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The page does not currently say where participles and gerunds (or verbal nouns in some languages) fit. These kinds of words are somewhat ambiguous. Participles are traditionally considered verb forms, and have some properties typically associated with verbs. Yet they can also modify nouns like adjectives (e.g. a falling tree), and in many languages such as German, they inflect like adjectives too. The same question applies to gerunds or verbal nouns as well. While they have verbal properties, such as taking objects, they inflect like nouns in some languages and can also have grammatical gender.
How do POS/lexical category classifications figure in these cases? Do they consider them verbs, or nouns and adjectives? Does their part of speech depend on how they are used, with some uses being verbal and others being adjectival/nominal? Or could they even be given their own label, separate from all of these, to accurately encompass both the verbal and adjectival/nominal properties? Rua ( mew) 11:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
He is the tallest Man in the world 144.48.132.233 ( talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
in the mend department we bought tied shirts and socks 2600:6C58:47F:BDD6:30AB:8BDB:2FE9:F3DE ( talk) 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexnollola.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmnahEssa. Peer reviewers: AmnahEssa.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
READ THIS!
Just in order to keep the editors calm, we know that Japanese does not have, in fact, "two classes of adjectives", but noun-like qualifiers ("na-adjectives") and stative verbs ("i-adjectives"). The "two classes" in the article are a common and very useful simplification. There's definitely a problem with the "correct" view vs. the "traditional" view. IIRC even Japanese language and Japanese grammar contradict each other on this respect. -- Pablo D. Flores 12:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)in other words, there are different speech that is composed by a person
This needs attention badly, but from the start, I think the Japanese examples are nonsense. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but shinsetsu is a "na-adjective" or a "nominal adjective" or an "adjectival noun" (or whatever), and that doesn't change no matter what particle you put after it, ne? Shinsetsu ni is an adverbial *phrase*, not a word, and ni is an adposition, not a part-of-speech marker! -- Pablo D. Flores 14:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article seems pretty far afield from real liguisting research. For example, the parts of speech listed are pretty Latin-based (most Asian languages, for example, don't have anything that can be reasonably called an "adjective", and most languages do not distinguish adverbs, even European ones). Likewise, I don't think the following sentence is true:
For example, "set" can be a noun (such as a set in mathematics), a verb (set it down), or an adjective (the trap is set).
That is, it is clearly true that English words are flexible, and many other languages are less flexible, but I don't think the categroical statement that other languages generally follow the one word/one part of speech rule really holds. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
One example of a dodgy part of speech concept is the preposition. It's definition has a word order requirement in it. This results in the need of another part of speech concept postposition, which plays the same role as preposition, but has a different word order requirement.
The situation is anologous to calling an adjective something else if it comes after the noun it qualifies.
Also there may be a case for regarding a preposition/postposition as a different part of speech depending on whether the phrase it heads acts as an adjective, adverb or indirect object.
Is preposition a bona-fide lexical category? Or does P stand for proposition or postposition?
--- User:Karl Palmen
I'm disambiguating Conjunction, and there is no page on the grammatical sense. Should this link to Grammatical conjunction, or is that phrase not used? If not, is another phrase used, or should we say Conjunction (grammar)? I will leave a link to the disambiguation page for now. — Toby 19:33 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
Regarding the addition of circumpositions: it's OK to add them, but the example given in the edit summary is not a circumposition, it's a circumfix. The ge- and -t of gemacht are grammatical bound morphemes. I think the French ne ... pas would qualify as a circumposition. I don't know of any other languages that have them, though, and even in French ne is often deleted when pas follows. -- Pablo D. Flores 10:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for the poor example. I guess I mixed things up. A better example is "von ... aus" as in "_Von_ der Burg _aus_ hast Du einen guten Überblick über die Stadt." (From the castle, you have a good overview over the city.) C.J. 24 May 2005. 17:21 (MEST)
How did we wind up with this article title? It seems awfully ambiguous for an article title and I don't quite see the problem with using word class. Can someone explain why it should stay under the current title?
Peter Isotalo 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to "Part of speech". This is the usual term, much more common than "lexical category". Many of the references given in the article use the term "part of speech". I am missing the justification for the use of the term "lexical category". Try searching Google scholar for "part of speech" vs Google scholar for "lexical category" vs Google scholar for "word class". -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Also notice the existence of Category:Parts of speech, created on 31 July 2004. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel like it is important to note that when discussing word classes in a linguistic sense, there is a very large difference between part of speech and lexical categories. A lexical category is a class of words that notional content (or physical meaning in the world). This is limited to nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and sometimes prepositions and pronouns. Other categories that would be considered parts of speech, such as conjunctions, determiners, and auxiliaries, are included in what is known as functional categories, or words/morphological elements that only serve a grammatical purpose. For instance, the word "the" lacks any kind of meaning without the noun it modifies, just as "and" is meaningless outside of its role in connecting phrases. Because these words do not have any meaning in the world and only serve to make the sentence grammatical, they cannot be considered lexical. Therefore, I would suggest that either lexical category be removed from the "also called" section in the beginning paragraph and given a section later on in the article or it be given its own separate page entirely because as it stands it implies a false synonymy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.14.99 ( talk) 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Parts of speech may seem ambiguous but that's because every nation every country and every language has a different way of using language. Each language switches its placement of, for example, nouns and adjectives. §§§§ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Acole511 (
talk •
contribs) 20:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
But I agree that this is about "word classes" and not about "part of speech"! which would be "predicate, subject, object". Correspondingly it links to the German page " de:Wortart" (type of word) and not to " de:Satz (Grammatik)" where the functional units of the phrase are discussed. — MFH: Talk 10:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Generative grammar defines lexical categories as 4 possibilities resultant from the binary features [+N] and [+V]. Underthis schema nouns are [+N,-V], verbs [-N,+V], adjective [+N,+V], and prepositions [-N, -V]. There are no lexical categories other than these. With this understanding one can better explain the relationship relationship, such as the fact that both nouns and adjectives require case or for creating more accurate context-sensitive rules such as the of-insertion rule in English where null=> of / [+N]_NP, where NP stands for noun phrase. If possible can the linguists who do the pages considered linguistics stub confirm this and provide a better written and more expansive section?
I'm a sophomore in college admittedly with poor English skills, but trying to improve. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? I am not criticizing the poriginal authors of this article, who know much more than I, but I will say that the first sentence of this article contains three words that I, and probably the majority of the population aren't familiar with: 'lexical', 'syntactic' and 'morphological'. I have learned that often the best way to quickly learn a subject in Wiki is to go back to the original article (view history tab) before it became polluted. I applaude the original authors and ask those who are concerned with exacting definitions to remember that approximation is OK early in these articles for the sake of the general public. I am not completely sure but it seems to me that highly educated people (or people who think they are) often try to use WIKI as an archival reference manual, or something to that effect. Wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.66.61 ( talk) 13:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
To which of those eight word classes do articles belong? -- Jobu0101 ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"defined four main categories of words: [...] These 15 were" looks like a typing error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.199.229 ( talk) 06:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Indo European langages have the common denominator that there is nine part of speeches. In this article numbers are forgotten. Ex: four, the third, zero etc. If English doesn't count numbers as part of speeches - where do they then belong ? (For instance Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian - languages that not are Indo European, lackes prepositions) Boeing720 ( talk) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Answer: going back to very old books on English grammar, we find "noun numeral" being treated as a separate part of speech, same as in Latin ("nomen numerale"). Nowadays, many English grammarists conflate numerals with the parts of speech whose functions they serve: nouns (cardinal numerals, e.g., "one", and collective numerals, e.g., "dozen"), adjectives (ordinal numerals, e.g., "first", and multiplier numerals, e.g., "single") and adverbs (multiplicative numerals, e.g., "once", and distributive numerals, e.g., "singly"). 141.239.243.190 ( talk) 09:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Early on, the article refers to a list of PoS 'above.' There is no list above that statement that I can find. My guess is is that there once was a list with 1.verb, 2. noun etc. that got moved or deleted but the reference to that list got overlooked. Right? 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article states that (Indo-?) European don't have nominal classifiers (linguistics. The linked-to article gives at least one example: head of cattle and the French equivalent (perhaps source). 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 09:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that parts of this article could be extended and also more concisely elaborated on. In addition English, it would be helpful to introduce sections on the word classes in other languages. Perhaps there can be a section added to explain the distinction between lexical and grammatical categories. To expand on the paragraph about how certain words in English can fall into multiple categories, it might be helpful to explain how to determine the word class (via tests or clues) if a word has an ambiguous category. Some citations are also missing in the latter half of the article. Cnchia ( talk) 02:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
In this article, half of the information is stated twice. I'm not sure if they're the same or just very similar, but I don't want to accidentally delete information that wasn't actually duplicated. Zombiedude347 ( talk) 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
What was called "traditional" here, is not traditional. Traditional tems - excluding modern (= degenerative, below simply younger) English terms - are:
(Ancient) Greek | ὄνομα (ónoma) | ἐπιϑετικόν (epithetikón) | ἀντωνυμία (antōnymía), ἀντονομασίᾱ (antonomasíā) | ἄρϑρον (árthron) | μετοχῆ (metokhḗ) | ῥῆμα (rhêma) | ἐπίρρημα (epírrhēma) | πρόθεσις (próthesis) | σύνδεσμος (sýndesmos) | ἐπιφώνημα (epiphṓnēma) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Latin | nomen | [nomen] substantivum | [nomen] adjectivum | pronomen | articulus | {[nomen] numerale} | participium | verbum | adverbium | praepositio | conjunctio | interjectio |
modern Latin-German terms | Nomen | Substantiv | Adjektiv | Pronomen | Artikel | {Numerale} | Partizip | Verb | Adverb | Präposition | Konjunktion | Interjektion |
modern German terms | Namenwort, Nennwort | Dingwort, Hauptwort | Beiwort, Eigenschaftswort | Fürwort | Geschlechtswort, Begleiter | {Zahlwort} | Mittelwort | Zeitwort, Tätigkeitswort | Umstandswort, Nebenwort | Verhältniswort, Vorwort | Bindewort | Ausrufewort, Empfindungswort |
English (older) | noun | [noun] substantive | [noun] adjective | pronoun | article | {numeral} | participle | verb | adverb | preposition | conjunction | interjection |
English (younger) | noun | adjective | pronoun ‡¹ | article | (numeral) | (participle) | verb | adverb | preposition | conjunction | interjection |
Notes:
-15:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.123.218 ( talk)
-10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This is mainly to User:Erutuon: you previously added text and a translation from the Art of Grammar, which leads to a listing of the parts of speech. What I was wondering was whether it goes on to describe the particular parts of speech in the terms given in that section of our article - i.e. do the descriptions given in our text match the original Greek descriptions, as is implied (or are they just some editor's own commentary)? And if they do match, is there a description in the original text for article, which we currently have missing? W. P. Uzer ( talk) 11:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
ἄρθρον ἐστὶ μέρος λόγου πτωτικόν, προτασσόμενον +καὶ+ ὑποτασσόμενον τῆς κλίσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων. καὶ ἔστι προτακτικὸν μὲν ὁ, ὑποτακτικὸν δὲ ὅς. ::παρέπεται δὲ αὐτῶι τρία· γένη, ἀριθμοί, πτώσεις. ::γένη μὲν οὖν εἰσι τρία· ὁ ποιητής, ἡ ποίησις, τὸ ποίημα. ::ἀριθμοὶ τρεῖς· +ἑνικός+, δυϊκός, πληθυντικός· ἑνικὸς μὲν ὁ ἡ τό, δυϊκὸς δὲ τώ τά +, πληθυντικὸς δὲ οἱ αἱ τά. ::πτώσεις δὲ ὁ τοῦ τῶι τόν ὦ, +ἡ τῆς τῆι τήν ὦ.
Because of "Article (árthron): a declinable part of speech, taken to include the definite article, but also the basic relative pronoun":
I've just read in (younger) grammar book that in old Greek terms the interrogative pronouns and indefinite pronouns were part of the "noun (ónoma)" and not of the "pronoun (antōnymía)". So there are other differences as well, and thus it might be better to omit such differences resp. to just note that these classes sometimes differ from modern understandings.
-
91.63.231.162 (
talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
"Aristotle added another class, "conjunctions" [sýndesmos], which included not only the words known today as conjunctions, but also pronouns, prepositions, and the article."
There's a reference for that, but that's more than questionable:
Thus: Correctly it's most likely that there are different interpretations of Aristoteles' terms, some that it's this way, some others say it's that way. So the best way should be to write something like "There are different interpretations of Aristoteles' terms. Some that it's this way, some others say it's that way." in the article.
PS - might also relate to the above discussion and to the following statements in the article: "Article (árthron): a declinable part of speech, taken to include the definite article, but also the basic relative pronoun" and "The Latin grammarian Priscian (fl. 500 AD) modified the above eightfold system, excluding "article"". Isn't the Latin "qui, quae, quod" the basic relative pronoun of Latin? So: In case of Greek "article" and "pronoun" might mean something different in antique times than they mean nowadays, but in case of Latin they mean the same: Quintilian and Priscian exclude the article from Latin, but they don't exclude the Latin relative pronoun.
-02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC), PS: 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The introduction has been vandalized to the extent it makes no sense. It is more than just the last edit. Some-body please clean it up. Kdammers ( talk) 16:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a thorough explanation of the difference between adverbs and adjectives would help. Parts of speech can sometimes get confusing especially with adverbs and adjectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boorumr ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Original context in lede:
I have no clue what this phrase means in standard English. Help? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 20:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It is noted that pronouns remain a closed class (a class of words rarely if ever added to), but now with the sudden affection of "76 genders" and asking "what your pronouns are", will that remain true? There should be a section mentioning pronouns will become an open class with designer genders. 174.114.77.231 ( talk) 02:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The page does not currently say where participles and gerunds (or verbal nouns in some languages) fit. These kinds of words are somewhat ambiguous. Participles are traditionally considered verb forms, and have some properties typically associated with verbs. Yet they can also modify nouns like adjectives (e.g. a falling tree), and in many languages such as German, they inflect like adjectives too. The same question applies to gerunds or verbal nouns as well. While they have verbal properties, such as taking objects, they inflect like nouns in some languages and can also have grammatical gender.
How do POS/lexical category classifications figure in these cases? Do they consider them verbs, or nouns and adjectives? Does their part of speech depend on how they are used, with some uses being verbal and others being adjectival/nominal? Or could they even be given their own label, separate from all of these, to accurately encompass both the verbal and adjectival/nominal properties? Rua ( mew) 11:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
He is the tallest Man in the world 144.48.132.233 ( talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
in the mend department we bought tied shirts and socks 2600:6C58:47F:BDD6:30AB:8BDB:2FE9:F3DE ( talk) 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)