Linguistics Template‑class | |||||||
|
Changed SVO etc. to AVO etc. See Subject Verb Object for discussion. kwami 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are Syntactic pivot and Theta role displayed in italics? The formatting seems to have been added with this edit, which offers no edit summary. Cnilep ( talk) 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "analytic"? Isolating is about number of morphemes within a word, not inflection/lack thereof like polysynthetic, agglutinative, and fusional are. Tezero ( talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps my real point is a different one again, but while the morphosyntactic subject is pretty concrete and I would say well defined (with the various types having relatively clear boundaries to one another, for "morphology" this is not the case. This is not Wikipedias fault - in my view this is a case both of (the unfortunately common phenomenon of) poorly defined linguistic terminology, but on top of this, a very ill-defined or unscientific approach to the subject matter in general - what the hell is supposed to be stated anyway? (and I'll not start on the fact of - if you want to try to apply the terms - the graded nature languages naturally have in regard to being "isolating" or "synthetic"..) . Anyway, long message, short point - wouldn't it make sense to highlight the clear-cut issue of morphosyntax a bit more (compared to "morphology"), and list those topics first, and morphosyntax after? Thanks for reading (if anyone does :P ), Sean 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Linguistics Template‑class | |||||||
|
Changed SVO etc. to AVO etc. See Subject Verb Object for discussion. kwami 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are Syntactic pivot and Theta role displayed in italics? The formatting seems to have been added with this edit, which offers no edit summary. Cnilep ( talk) 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "analytic"? Isolating is about number of morphemes within a word, not inflection/lack thereof like polysynthetic, agglutinative, and fusional are. Tezero ( talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps my real point is a different one again, but while the morphosyntactic subject is pretty concrete and I would say well defined (with the various types having relatively clear boundaries to one another, for "morphology" this is not the case. This is not Wikipedias fault - in my view this is a case both of (the unfortunately common phenomenon of) poorly defined linguistic terminology, but on top of this, a very ill-defined or unscientific approach to the subject matter in general - what the hell is supposed to be stated anyway? (and I'll not start on the fact of - if you want to try to apply the terms - the graded nature languages naturally have in regard to being "isolating" or "synthetic"..) . Anyway, long message, short point - wouldn't it make sense to highlight the clear-cut issue of morphosyntax a bit more (compared to "morphology"), and list those topics first, and morphosyntax after? Thanks for reading (if anyone does :P ), Sean 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)