Wiktionary simplewiktionary https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page MediaWiki 1.43.0-wmf.27 case-sensitive Media Special Talk User User talk Wiktionary Wiktionary talk File File talk MediaWiki MediaWiki talk Template Template talk Help Help talk Category Category talk TimedText TimedText talk Module Module talk 3 2614 534017 532223 2024-10-23T05:11:26Z Victor Bob 42043 /* when */ Reply 534017 wikitext text/x-wiki ==''by virtue'' and ''in league''== Hello, Prof. Brett, I know you are a co-author of ''SIEG2'', and there is an online document on the Cambridge University Press website at https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/a-students-introduction-to-english-grammar/EB0ABC6005935012E5270C8470B2B740/resources/instructor-resources/D48833D7B1FE6A66EE285D77E0502455. In this document there is a list of prepositions which contains ''by virtue'' and ''in league''. Or you can just click this link https://kdocs.cn/l/cq56wLWSNOHR?f=201, and you can see this list.[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 15:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC) :Understood.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 18:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC) == null determiner == In ''CGEL'' p.331, the ''such'' in ''such a brilliant idea'' is an external modifer. However, the ''such'' in ''such brilliant ideas'' is an internal modifier. So why not analyze the ''such'' in ''such brilliant ideas'' as an external modifier too? To illustrate, please consider the following sentence pairs: ① That is such [a brilliant idea]. ② Those are such [∅ brilliant ideas]. ①’ That is [a brilliant idea]. ②’ Those are [∅ brilliant ideas]. It seems that there exists a null determiner which is covert and is located right before the plural NP ''brilliant ideas'' in ② and ②’. Hence, the ''such'' in ② seems to be a predeterminer modifier (external modifier) which precedes a null determiner represented by ∅ rather than to be an internal modifier. ---[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) :Two reasons. First, on principle, ''CGEL'' rejects the idea of null elements, so a null determiner just doesn't fly as an idea. Secondly, ''such'' is an internal modifier is examples like ''few such studies are available'', so there's no obvious reason why it would be external when there's no determiner.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 14:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Understood, thank you very much. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 15:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC) == particle ''[[short]]'' == Yes, it is best analyzed as a preposition in ''cut short something'', and I've reverted it. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 04:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC) == content-specifying complement == Hello, Prof. Brett, I want to ask you a question. Please consider the sentence below: ''I think that he is right.'' Do authors of ''CGEL'' analyze ''that he is right'' in the above sentence as a content-specifying complement and ''think'' (as used here) an intransitive verb? ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 02:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC) :Yes, I think that's right. Why?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Because in China, we are taught in middle school that the verb ''think'' is transitive when followed by a subordinate clause. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC) :This is mostly a terminological issue, I think. On the one hand, content-clause complements and objects have very different distributions, so there's a good reason to want to distinguish between them. Saying that transitive verbs allow only objects captures that difference. On the other hand, both can participate in forming the passive voice, so there's clearly some connection between them, and being able to say passive clauses are usually formed with transitive verbs is handy. So, I wouldn't say that your middle school curriculum was wrong here. There's no inherently correct meaning for ''transitive''.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Thank you for your reply, Prof. Brett. Your reply is extremely helpful to me. By the way, I wonder whether we can draw a more general conclusion that all content clauses function as content-specifying complement or content-specifying supplement. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) :What about subject?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 21:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC) The subject is also a type of complement (more specifically, external complement) in ''CGEL'', though many grammars do not classify subjects as complements. For example, in generative syntax, subjects are specifiers rather than complements. Nonetheless, in word grammar (dependency grammar), subjects are indeed complements. Hence different grammatical theories differ in the classification of the function of subjects. Perhaps authors of ''CGEL'' are in favor of the analysis of word grammar (dependency grammar), for they use terms like ''heads'', ''dependents'' and so on. These terms are also widely used in the framework of dependency grammar. Nowadays generative grammar has more influence than dependency grammar, so many grammarains will not regard the subject as a complement, such as Bas Aarts. In ''OMEG'', he doesn't think subjects should be subsumed into complements. Notwithstanding, if we follow the analysis in the framework of word grammar, we can say the subject is a type of complement too, and we just distinguish external complements from internal ones. In the framework of generative grammar, semantic predicates can have external arguments in terms of their argument structures. When it comes to verbs, external arguments are exactly what authors of ''CGEL'' call external complements. Using the term ''external complement'', we can easily find the parallel between semantic arguments and syntactic complements, which is maybe an advantage of analyzing the subject as a complement. In short, it seems to me that subjects are complements too. Accordingly, content clauses can function as external complements (i.e. subjects), internal complements (viz. predicative complements and obliques), or supplements. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) :Agreed.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 15:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC) == Basic English combined wordlist == Do you know why [[WT:Extended Basic English alphabetical wordlist]] is described as having 1500 words, when it actually has about 2600? I noticed this on Simple Wikipedia too, and [[w:simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk#Basic English combined wordlist|brought it up]]. I thought you might know the reason for it. [[User:Lights and freedom|Lights and freedom]] ([[User talk:Lights and freedom|talk]]) 19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC) :Where is it described that way? Off the top of my head, I would guess it's a word family vs word form counting difference. Not sure though.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC) == complex object == In China, students in high school are familiar with the term ''complex object'' and they are told that the complex object always contains an object and an object complement. The so-called ''complex objects'' are in brackets in the following sentences: ① I dislike [people telling lies]. ② He hates [anyone parking in his space]. ③ They would hate [Jim to sell his boat]. ④ I heard [the wind blowing]. ⑤ My clumsy mistake set [everybody laughing]. ⑥ He wants [you to call him back at eleven]. As far as I know, the ''complex object'' analysis differs markedly from the ''catenative complement'' analysis in ''CGEL''. The authors of ''CGEL'' analaze ''you'' in ⑥ as an object and ''to call him back at eleven'' in ⑥ as a catenative complement. However, the ''complex object'' analysis is consistent with the analysis in Generative Syntax except that generative grammarians refer to constituents bracketed above as ''verbal small clauses''. The analysis favored by Generative Syntax and traditional grammar taught in China assumes that there is no '''rasing''' in the course of syntactic derivation of the sentence ''He wants you to call him back at eleven''. By contrast, ''you'' is analyzed as a raised object in ''He wants you to call him back at eleven'' by authors of ''CGEL''. So there are disputes over whether the '''rasing''' has truly taken place in the sentences ①-⑥ or not. I am wondering which analysis you will support, Prof. Brett. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 05:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) :I'm no expert in generative syntax, but my understanding is that this is where the idea of raising arose. See discussions of ECM verbs.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah, exceptional case marking verbs! ECM verbs are said to be followed by TPs rather than by CPs, which means, for instance, the verb ''expect'' is followed by a TP in ''expect someone to do something'' and that the verb ''arrange'' is followed by a CP in ''arrange for someone to do something'' in that ''expect'' assigns accusative case to the subject of the following infinitival clause while ''arrange'' does not, inasmuch as the complementizer ''for'' assigns accusative case to the subject of the infinitival clause. ——Victor Bob (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) == modern grammar == Hello, Prof. Brett, today I feel extremely upset. I am a senior majoring in English, and my grades in university are not bad. Today, I attended an interview. I went to an English training institution in Chengdu to find a job to help high school students learn English. The interview is to let me talk about grammar points for 30 minutes. In China, generally speaking, high school students learn traditional grammar, so I talked about the ''nominal clauses'' in traditional grammar, which I was very familiar with, and I explained the concept of ''nominal clauses'' and other relevant contents in detail. But many teachers present criticized me. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 12:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) :That doesn't sound like a positive interview experience. I'm sorry you went through that, and I hope you're able to find a job that gives you a sense of meaning soon.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC) == Translation == I try to translate ''CGEL'' into Chinese, some chapters having already been translated. But few people agree with the views in ''CGEL''. My university teachers also do not agree with the views in the Cambridge Grammar. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 12:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) :I think translating ''CGEL'' would be a very valuable thing to do. What are you doing with the translated material? :I think you'll find that most teachers worldwide haven't taken the opportunity to consider many different ways to think about English grammar. Few of the faculty I, personally, work with have moved away from traditional approaches. It can certainly be frustrating. Try not to define yourself by whether specific others are open to seeing your perspective on this kind of thing.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 17:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC) : I combine the translated material with some analyses in minimalist syntax to construct a grammar system which may be regarded as a development of ''CGEL''. In China, almost all students are taught traditional grammar. Many doctors who study English functional grammar or cognitive grammar also analyze sentences from the perspective of traditional grammar. For example, many doctoral students majoring in English linguistics use the term ''non-predicate verb'', which is the equivalent of the term ''non-finite verb''. At the very beginning，grammarains in China translate ''non-finite verb'' into Chinese ''非谓语动词'', because these people think that non-finite verbs cannot function as predicator. After that, they create a term ''non-predicate verb'' by translating ''非谓语动词'' into English. As you can see, the term become more and more drift from the basic meaning in English after translation into Chinese because of Chinese grammarians' misunderstanding of technical terms. So traditional grammarians in China cannot accept the term ''non-finite clauses'', since they can't understand why ''non-predicate verbs'' can function as predicator, which is unacceptable and inconceivable to them. The key is that we need to translate English terms into accurate Chinese counterparts. That is why I am motivated to translate the Cambridge Grammar into Chinese. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 02:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) :I see. Terminology can have unintended consequences. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC) == Detective Clauses == Constructions like ''believe sb. to do sth.'', ''imagine sb. to do sth.'', etc. are called ECM constructions, in which the expressions ''sb. to do sth.'' are known as '''defective clauses'''. In comparison, these expressions are not regarded as a complement clause but a sequence of two distinct types of complement in ''CGEL''. See ''The Grammar Book'' (3rd edition) p.685 (https://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Larsen-Freeman-Celce-Murcia-Marianne-Hardcover/dp/B011822E7A) and ''English Syntax and Argumentation'' (2nd edition) p.77 (https://kdocs.cn/l/ciYZDnfdw9Ir?f=201). ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 06:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) == infinitival ''[[to]]'' == Indeed, the infinitival ''to'' is analyzed as an auxiliary in the earlier literature of generative grammar (i.e. GB-theory) and also in dependency grammar. But it is distinguished from auxiliaries in more recent generative work. As mentioned earlier, the infinitival ''to'' belongs to the category of T in minimalist syntax, which means that infinitival ''to'' is a functional head in infinitival clauses. Instead, it is analyzed as a dependent in ''CGEL''. The crucial point is that if we analyze it as an auxiliary, the '''consistency''' in the framework of ''CGEL'' will '''break down'''. In ''I hope to see you soon'', supposing ''to'' is an auxiliary, then ''see you soon'' must be a non-finite '''clause''' functioning as catenative complement according to catenative-auxiliary analysis. Note that if we take ''to'' as a subordinator, ''see you soon'' is just a '''VP'''. In addition, if we consider other types of non-finite clauses, we must admit that if we say the ''to'' is an auxiliary, infinitivals then become the most distinct type of non-finite clauses because only infinitival clauses are invariably headed by the auxiliary verb ''to'' while other types of non-finite clause are headed by a lexical verb in most cases. There is no justification to give infinitival clauses such a privileged status. It is explicitly proposed that in minimalist syntax, heads are always functional rather than having semantic content. This view can be shown as in the following expressions: DP ''the book'' TP ''to see you soon'' CP ''that they are right'' It is obvious form above expressions that ''the'', ''to'', and ''that'' are all functional '''heads''' without semantic content in minimalist syntax. Notwithstanding, ''the'', ''to'', and ''that'' are analyzed as '''dependents''' in ''CGEL''. It's better to analyze ''to'' as head, but it doesn't mean that we must analyze it as an auxiliary verb. In view of the fact that analyzing ''to'' as head will lead to the result that other functional words like determiners and complementizers should also be regarded as heads, I prefer to analyze these dummy words as dependent, in accord with the implicit view in ''CGEL'' that normally contentives can function as head. In short, ''to'' is a T in minimalist syntax and a subordinator in ''CGEL''. Analyzing it as an auxiliary verb isn't appropriate and necessary. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 00:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) :It is by no means obvious that they are heads. Have a look at Noun Phrases versus Determiner Phrases, for instance. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 14:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC) : Thank you for the above link, Prof. Brett. The footnote 13 on page 14 of that paper says ''conversely, other languages, like Chinese, have NPs that have a semantic type that allows them to refer directly, making items with the determiner function superfluous. Such languages require neither determinatives nor DPs.'', which is still to be considered carefully. Let's suppose I see a person holding five books, and I say to him in Chinese ''你有五本书，给我一本看看，可以吗？ (You have five books. Can you show me one?)'', in which case, ''五本书'' corresponds to ''five books'', and ''一本'' corresponds to ''one''. And please consider the following sentences: ① Can you show me one book? (给我一本书看看，可以吗？) ①’ Can you show me one? (给我一本看看，可以吗？) ② Let's explore Chengdu! (我们来探索成都吧！) ②’ Let's explore! (我们来探索吧！) It's said that ''one'' is a transitive determiner in ① while an intransitive one without any complement in ①’, just as the verb ''explore'' is transitive in ② but intransitive in ②’. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 14:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) :The claim in the footnote is not that Chinese never needs determiners. It is the claim that phrases such as 本 '''can be''' referring phrases, even without a determiner, while in languages like English they cannot. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 15:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) ::Thanks to your prompt, I suddenly had a lot of inspiration. Now it's 11:33 p.m. A more detailed reply will be given tomorrow. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 15:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) : On the one hand, the DP analysis does have many advantages. One of these is that we can sidestep the complexity of the fused-head analysis in ''CGEL''. Fused-head constructions are shown in square brackets as follows: ['''This'''] is infuriating. (fusion of determiner and head) I like ['''the''' taller of them]. (fusion of internal modifier and head) I earn three times the amount Bill does, and Mary earns ['''double''']. (fusion of predeterminer and head) When we look on the determiners in bold in above sentences as pure heads, it follows naturally that these constituents in square brackets are DPs, which analysis is simpler than the fused-head analysis. See p.37 of ''English Grammar'' written by Richard Hudson in 1998 who is the founder of word grammar at https://kdocs.cn/l/caYNdzRoYJdQ. In the generative literature, linguists do recognise the existence of NP which, however, is dominated by the next higher DP, in the same way as they recognise the existence of VP which in turn is dominated by the next higher vP (both D and v are functional heads). On the other hand, the NP analysis seems more tempting and indeed is adopted in many grammars. It is difficult to say which analysis is better. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 05:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC) :If the DP analysis is rejected by such diverse luminaries as Chomsky and Huddleston, perhaps it's not so difficult to say. Note, also, that Abney never published his dissertation. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC) : The NP analysis is undoubtedly better in the framework of ''CGEL'', and I believe it is indeed preferable to the DP hypothesis in minimalist syntax. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 12:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC) == Descriptive versus Generative == There is always a gap between descriptive grammar and generative grammar. Which one do you prefer? ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 14:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC) :As I've said, I'm no expert on generative syntax, but my general view is that it is a deeply and multifariously flawed research program. Rarely will I favour a generative analysis over the ''CGEL'' analysis when it comes to English. This is not to say that I think ''CGEL'' is infallible. I think, for instance that the coordination structure has a small inconsistency. I think ''more'' and ''less'' are always determinatives and never adverbs. I think their whole approach to gender is flawed. I think they overlook certain closed category words, and I wish they had been more explicit in analyzing certain structures like fronting/inversion. What, for instance, would be the structure of ''here are some emails''? I don't think ''CGEL'' tells us. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 14:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) : I agree with you, and I am inspired by your remarks, thank you so much, Prof. Brett. We've talked so many grammatical topics, and I have benefited form the discussion with you. My university teachers never teach me such fascinating syntactic analyses. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 15:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC) == ''[[last]]'' == ''Last'' is a determiner (see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/last1_1?q=last) especially in expressions like ''her last book'', ''this last point'', etc. in which the ''last'' has the same meaning as in expressions like ''last night'', ''last Tuesday'', etc. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) :Yes, it is. But mostly it's an adjective, so your moving the determiner entry to the top was not helpful. The words are presented in order of their most common uses. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 01:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) : Note also that it can never be an adjective in ''A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language'' (1985) and https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/last1_1?q=last. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 01:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) : And does the ''CompGEL'''s justification for saying it can never be an adjective make any sense? Have you thought through the various pieces of evidence, both positive and negative, for the Adjective and non-adjective analyses?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 02:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ::From the bottom of my heart, ''CGEL'' is definitely better than ''CoGEL''. The analysis of ''last'' is reasonable in ''CGEL''. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 13:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) == ''Adjunct'' versus ''Complement'' == Hello, Prof. Brett, I have a question which seems confusing to me. In ''I'm glad to see you back where you belong'', what's the grammatical function of the fused relative PP? ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 07:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) :It's a tricky question, but I think it's best to analyze ''back'' as taking a locative complement. In 1973, Jackendoff argued that a number of PPs take PP complements. In particular, he argued that a ''from'' PP takes both an NP object and a ''to'' PP complement. What do you think about that?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ::It seems to me that ''back'' is a directional preposition modifier (cf. ''CGEL'' p. 645) but on the other hand, the fused relative PP seems to an appositive modifier. It's too confusing.——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 13:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ::I think we have a structure like [''back'' [PP]], for example [''back'' [''here'']] or [''back'' [''in Canada'']].--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 14:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC) :::It sounds reasonable, thank you so much, Prof. Brett. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 14:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC) :::By the way, I am wondering if the sentence ''We consider John as fond of syntax'' is grammatical, because this sentence is related to my Bachelor's Degree thesis. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 14:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ::::For me, it's ungrammatical. I would say ''We consider John fond...'' or ''We consider John to be fond...'', but not the ''as'' PP.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 16:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) :::::Understood, thanks a lot. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) == infinitival ''[[to]]'' == Hello, Prof. Brett. Indeed, the infinitival ''to'' is analyzed as an auxiliary in the literature on Word Grammar. Within the framework of Minimalist Syntax, the constituent following the infinitival ''[[to]]'' is a clause, not just a VP. More specifically, infinitival ''[[to]]'' is a non-finite modal auxiliary verb. Then it is a catenative verb taking an infinitival clause as its complement. A sentence like ''I hope to see you soon'' is actuaclly a construction containing three clauses: one main clause and two subordinate clauses. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 05:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) :Hi, Victor Bob, :There are very good reasons to think that ''[[to]]'' is a highly defective modal auxiliary verb. There are, however, two main related reasons why it is, nevertheless, not marked that way here. First, it's an extremely unintuitive idea, and many people would simply be confused if we marked it as a verb. Second, all the other category assignments here depend on ''CGEL'', and this would contradict the ''CGEL'' analysis, so we'd have to point to papers like those I cited on Wikipedia in the article on English subordinators. And that's not great for a dictionary that's supposed to be simple. And so we have this compromise. --[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 10:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) ::Agreed. Thanks for your reply. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 03:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC) == ''[[when]]'' == Hi, Prof. Brett, There are two sentences which seem to me to contain the relative pronoun ''when'': ① ''The baby is due in May, by when the new house should be finished.'' ② ''That was written in 1946, since when the education system has undergone great changes.'' The word ''when'' in above examples seems to be a pronoun in its anaphoric use, but it also looks like a preposition as labelled in this Wiktionary. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 06:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC) :Looks like a pronoun how: semantically, syntactically, or in some other way?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 10:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) ::For example, we cannot say ''by in May'' or ''since in 1946'' and we can replace ''when'' in above sentences with ''which time''. ::——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 11:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) :::Indeed, prototypical prepositions don't head PPs in complement function in a ''by'' phrase, but we can say ''by now'', ''by then'', and ''by around May 1''. Conversely, ''when'' doesn't function as the complement of many other prepositions. If it were a pronoun, we'd expect *''at when'' or *''in when'', but we don't find those. So, there may be something there, but you'd need a much more fleshed out case. You don't want to go revising things on the basis of a few constructions.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC) ::::Yes, I regard it as a deictic preposition and I do not change its category. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 14:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) ::::No. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 05:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC) == are, were == I noticed [[are]] was missing content, so I added the other forms that use it. Then I noticed that [[were]] has all the forms, but using a seemingly more simple explanation ([[is]], [[am]], and [[was]] also use this seemingly more simple explanation). However, maybe writing "first/second/third person" is actually easier for a new speaker of English. What do you think? Could you adjust either of these entries to what you think is better? [[User:Lights and freedom|Lights and freedom]] ([[User talk:Lights and freedom|talk]]) 04:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC) :Thank you! I've aligned it with ''were''. --[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC) == extraposed elements == Hello, Prof. Brett. I am not sure whether extraposed subjects and extraposed objects are internal complements or not. They seem to be internal complements, in spite of the fact that in traditional grammer, they are regarded as external. What's your opinion? ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) :We struggled with this, but you can see our decision here. --[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 18:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) ::I note that in your PDF, there is a structural diagram for an extraposed subject in a sentence like ''It is hard to keep it up'', where the infinitival clause is analysed as a complement to the VP ''is hard''. In my opinion, the infinitival clause should be dependent on the adjective ''hard''. There is also a structural diagram on Supplemental Tree Diagrams of ''SIEG2'' (https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/a-students-introduction-to-english-grammar/EB0ABC6005935012E5270C8470B2B740/resources/instructor-resources/D48833D7B1FE6A66EE285D77E0502455) which has represented the structure of a sentence like ''It’s vital for him to keep us informed'', in which the infinitival clause is construed as being an adjectival complement. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 01:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) :Thanks for this! It sounds like I made a mistake in the supplemental tree diagrams. Outside of the extraposed-subject construction, neither of these adjectives takes these complements, which is why we decided to put it in the VP rather than the AdjP. Consider the difference between extraposed ''It's hard to agree with that idea.'' which is equivalent to ''To agree with that idea is hard.'' and the complement in the AdjP in ''John is hard to agree with.'' What do you think? --[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) == content clauses and infinitivals == Hello, Prof. Brett. Recently I have read some papers and books relating to the function of content clauses and infinitivals. In short, within frameworks of TG, LFG and HPSG, infinitivals and content clauses are construed as being neither in ''Subject'' nor in ''Object'' function by lots of syntacticians working in those frameworks. As we have discussed earlier, when content clauses and infinitivals function as VP-internal complement, they are of course not in ''Object'' function. Although those syntacticians are in agreement with us on the non-object function of postverbal infinitivals and content clauses, they disagree with us on the function of subordinate clauses exemplified below, which for them are not in ''Subject'' function. ①That they passed did not surprise us. ②To turn back now would be a mistake. More specifically, TG syntacticians think subordinate clauses in ① and ② are not Subjects (in their terms, Specifiers of TPs) but Specifiers of CPs; LFG or HPSG linguists regard them as Topics rather than Subjects. ———[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 05:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) :I think it's pretty clear that CGEL takes them to be in subject function, and not in prenucleus function.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 10:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) ::I'm sorry that I don't explain it very clearly. What I mean is that under their view, to put their terms into CGEL terms, those subordinate clauses in ① and ② serve as Prenucleus (i.e. Specifier of CP= Topic= Prenucleus). I know that in CGEL they are taken as subjects. ---[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 11:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) ::Got it.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) == ''[[much]]'' == Hello, Prof. Brett. It seems to me that ''[[much]]'' is an adverb in sentences like ''Much as I would like to stay, I really must go home''. ---[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 10:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) :I see. Care to say more?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 10:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC) ::It seems that the prenuclear position before a nucleus ''as''-PP cannot be filled by a determiner. In contrast, an adverb can readily be in the prenuclear position before an ''as''-PP, as in ''Hard as he studied, he made little progress''. ---[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 11:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) :::This would apply to ''little'' too. But I think the situation is simply that this construction is a shortening of ''as much as he studied''..., and so you need a D that can be modified by the first ''as'', and there just aren't many of those. I don't think it's sufficient basis on which to posit a new category for ''much'' and ''little''.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) ::::Understood. But it then follows that ''[[more]]'', which is the comparative form of ''[[much]]'', seems also to be a determiner in sentences like ''Pat is more intelligent than Terry''. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 12:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC) That is, in fact, my position. I'm presenting a paper at the end of the month ([https://www.overleaf.com/read/hhmhgyzdzbsg version in progress]; comments welcome) at [https://brettrey.github.io/pullum-festschrift/ an event for Geoff Pullum], and if I can persuade him and John Payne, then I will change [[more]] and [[less]] to D only.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) :I also think that ''more'' and ''less'' are never adverbs. :So far as I know, there is another respectable grammarian, Andrew Radford, who agrees with us on the category of ''more'' and ''less''. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 02:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC) ::That seems largely co-incidental. He also calls ''very'' a determiner. ::By the way, could you make more use of the preview option, rather than making so many small edits one after the other on the same page?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 10:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC) :::I'm sorry. I'll try to use the preview button. By the way, will there be a second edition of ''CGEL''? Many readers are looking forward to the publication of the new edition of that book; after all, the 2nd edition of ''SIEG'' has already been released recently, whose first edition was published in 2005. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 11:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) :No, there won't be a second edition of ''CGEL''. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) ::Hello, Prof. Brett. Long time no see. Do Pullum and Payne agree with us that ''much'' and ''less'' are never adverbs? [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 12:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC) :::Hi! John says he is agnostic, and Geoff says we "may be right." :-) --[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC) == SIEG2 == Hello, Prof. Brett. I notice that in SIEG2 the clause following ''lest'' is defined as a bare infinitival clause (p.36 ''lest <u>you be in danger</u>''). But I think it is a content clause (more specifically, a subjunctive one). ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 08:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC) :Yes, that's a mistake. Thank you!--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC) == anybody == Hi, Prof. Brett. I note that ''anybody'' is labelled by Huddleston as a pronoun in his 1984 book but later as a determinative. Since the root of ''anybody'' is nominal, perhaps an N categorial label would be preferable. ——[[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 15:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) :No, I don't think it would. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40058013 [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) == some adverbs in SIEG2 == On p.221 of SIEG2, ''besides, instead, then'' are taken as adverbs, but in this Simple Wiktionary, they have only one part of speech, i.e. P. As for [[though]], it has almost the same meaning as [[notwithstanding]] which can also be used independently and is solely a preposition. [[User:Victor Bob|Victor Bob]] ([[User talk:Victor Bob|talk]]) 13:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) :Well spotted! Again, I don't have time to look into this today, but I encourage you do to so.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) ::On p.214 of ''SIEG2'', ''very [[much]]'' and ''[[enough]]'' are viewed as AdvPs, but I think they are DPs. ——[[User:Victor Bob|<font face="Georgia">'''Victor Bob'''</font>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<font face="Georgia">[talk]</font>]] 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) == ''[[for]]'' == Hello, Prof. Reynolds. Here is the detailed discussion on why ''for'' is never a subordinator. Although I agree with Bas Aarts on its prepositional status, it seems that ''for'' only takes a single NP as complement, rather than licensing a clause, as argued by him. ---[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 03:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC) :Why do you think that preprint from four years ago hasn't been published?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 10:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC) ::I don't know but Hudson in his WG framework and Emonds in his book ''A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories'' (1985) also defend the prepositional status of infinitival ''for''. --[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 00:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) ::How does such an analysis deal with examples like ''there was no need for her to be there''?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 15:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC) :::First, the expression ''her to be there'' is taken as a clause in CGEL but this expression seems not to be a constituent at all. :::Second, ''for her'' is a PP licensed by the prepositional verb ''to''. :::Third, there is no overt subject of ''to''. :::In short, ''for'' is a grammaticised preposition. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 10:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC) == Hiya! == Don't know if you remember but are we still giving simplewiki admins adminship here on wikt if they ask for it? Just for xwiki stuff, which I know is fairly rare but just in case, Thx '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Fr33kman|man]]</font> ^{<font color="darkgreen" size="2">[[User talk:Fr33kman|t]]</font> - <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Fr33kman|c]]</font>}''''' 16:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) == ''[[anywhere]]'' == Is it plausible to analyse ''anywhere'' in ''He's never been anywhere outside Britain'' as a preposition? [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) :What would be the evidence and counter evidence?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) ::It is in locative complement function and so qualifies as an intransitive preposition. As for the counter evedidence, it seems to be postmodified by ''outside Britain'', which is typical of a nominal, instead of a preposition. What do you think? --[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 12:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC) :::Yes, similarly, in ''they headed somewhere''. I think the complement can fit within a nominal within a fused-head PP, but not sure what it would look like. Any thoughts?--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) ::::It has the same distribution as a prototypical PP in terms of its external syntax but it can also contain an internal modifier, as in ''They headed somewhere interesting''. Thus its syntactic behavior is highly exceptional. It therefore seems to be very hard to diagram the internal structure of ''somewhere interesting''. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 14:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC) :::::On the other hand, it has the same distribution as ''some place''.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 22:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) == New thoughts == Hello, Prof. Reynolds. Today I find two sentences that seem to be able to reveal the exact category of ''where'' and its related compound words. ① Where can I hide that isn't too obvious? ② I like to go somewhere warm on vacation. There is no doubt that ''where'' in ① is modified by a relative clause and ''somewhere'' in ② is modified by an AdjP. However, if we follow CGEL, ''where'' in ① is a preposition but ''somewhere'' in ② is a determinative. As we all know, it is typical of a nominal to take internal modifiers expressed as relative clauses or AdjPs. Well, now we have at least three categories that can be modified by relative clauses or AdjPs. That is, Nominals, Prepositions, and Determinatives. Since a preposition can be modified by a relative clause, as shown in ①, why don't we just take ''somewhere'' in ② as a preposition too, given that a preposition can take various kinds of modifier? Or, maybe ''where'' and ''somewhere'' are just pronouns which project into nominals in the above cases. And this is the opinion holded by Andrew Radford, a respectable syntactician working in the framework of Minimalist Syntax. --[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 00:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC) :These are nice pieces of data, but ''Where can I hide that isn't too obvious?'' is related to the interrogative of something like ''I can hide <u>in a place</u> that isn't too obvious.'' The relative clause is inside a nominal there; it's not *''I can hide where that isn't too obvious.''--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 12:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) ::I see. In addition, compare also: ::Sit ''wherever'' you like. ::Sit ''anywhere'' you like. ::CGEL assigns two distinct categories to the italicised words above, which seems to be an unnecessary complication. --[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 13:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC) A complication, yes, but a necessary one, I think.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 22:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC) :In a sentence like ''This is where I live'', the word ''where'' is analysed as a preposition in CGEL, and it is in Head function within the fused relative. But the category of the fused relative is an NP rather than a PP projected by the Head preposition ''where''. So, this is a piece of evidence against the prepositional status of ''where''. --[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 12:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) == to == :Hi, Victor Bob, :There are very good reasons to think that ''[[to]]'' is a highly defective modal auxiliary verb. It is you who says that it is a modal. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 03:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC) : My mistake. I should have said "modal verb".--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC) ::Dear Brett, so can I add ''modal'' to ''to''? ::In addition, your edits on ''modal verb'', that is, you don't think modals are auxiliaries, seem to be conflicting with SIEG2 p.50. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 13:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC) :::Modal refers to the semantics of the verb. Auxiliary refers to its syntax. If ''to'' is a verb, it is an auxiliary, but whether it is a verb or not, it has no modal semantics. Most modal verbs are auxiliary verbs, but a verb like ''oblige'' is a modal lexical verb. Conversely, some auxiliary verbs like ''have'' are not modal.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) ::::Got it. Thank you very much! By the way, I note that ''shouldn't'' is taken to be a word, rather than a contraction composed of two words. Any thoughts? [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 02:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) :::::Yes, the entry for ''shouldn't'' and all the other negative forms is correct.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) ::::::Agreed. -- [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 11:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC) == [[such]] == The word ''such'' in ''such as'' is categorised as an adjective here, but this word is predicandless, just like a typical preposition. Furthermore, it doesn't inflect for grade. That said, we seem to allow an adjective to be predicandless. Hence, words like [[prior]], [[previous]], [[pursuant]], and so on appear to be more like adjectives, albeit predicandless. --[[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 04:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) :I'm not sure I follow. I can't think of a way to use ''such as...'' as a predicative complement – there, it would be ''such that...'' – so I'm not sure how to evaluate whether it has a predicand. As a preposition, we'd expect examples like: *''Such as dogs and cats, pets often live in out homes.'' Clearly, that's no good.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) ::Yes, now it seems to me that it's an adjective. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 12:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) == catenative-auxiliary analysis == Hello, Prof. Reynolds. In CGEL, catenatives are always those verbs which license non-finites. Auxiliary verbs are also catenatives, which means they're main verbs in Head function with the following non-finite clauses as complements. For example, in '' She can leave right now'', ''leave right now'' is an infinitival clause. Well, I wanna know why CGEL recognizes it as a clause rather than a VP. (I guess CGEL holds the view that ''she'' is a raised subject originating as the infinitival subject but I'm not very sure.) [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 13:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) :My understanding is that it's to accommodate cases like ''We had planned <u>for them to leave at 6:00</u>''.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) == [[some]] == When followed by a singular count noun, it seems to be definite and non-specific, whereas ''the'' is always definite and specific. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC) :yes, I think that's right.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 17:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) == whereby == It can indeed be used as a subordinator. See Andrew Radford, ''Relative clauses: Structure and variation in everyday English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. p. 88. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC) :No, it can't. See CGEL.--[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 17:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC) == Request to Undelete [[Kourage Beatz NSI]] == I have been paid to edit [[Kourage Beatz NSI]] so that I can edit this page as it should. I understand that the user to publish the page himself and failed. So I'm asking that you give [[Kourage Beatz NSI]] page another chance to be properly edited because after my research I found out that the person is a popular record producer in Nigeria and have won notable career awards and article about this should be added to Wikipedia. [[User:Ayolaba|Ayolaba]] ([[User talk:Ayolaba|talk]]) 08:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC) : This user is reported to [[WT:AN]]. [[User:MathXplore|MathXplore]] ([[User talk:MathXplore|talk]]) 08:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC) == Another two mistakes in ''SIEG2'' == Hello, Prof. Brett. There seem to be two mistakes in the Answer Guide of ''SIEG2''. [[File:Answer Guide page 22.jpg|thumb|''SIEG2'' 's Answer Guide p. 22]] The expression ''if he'll be safe'' is an interrogative content clause, not a conditional PP. And ''whatever you say'' is not an NP but rather an open interrogative clause. -- [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) :Thanks, Victor Bob! I really appreciate your finding and pointing out these errors. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC) == The English Teacher's Guide == Hello, Prof Reynolds. How's it going? 龙年大吉，新春快乐，财运滚滚！Happy Chinese New Year! I am also looking forward to the publication of your book. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 12:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC) :Thanks, Victor Bob! Happy Chinese New Year! to you too! The book's publication is quite a long way off, still, but I appreciate your interest. Do you want to email me your real name so that I can acknowledge your help? [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 21:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) ::I have emailed you. [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 02:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) == Hi! == Hi, Cromwellt! Hi, Brett! Hi, everybody else! Cromwellt called me and I came. I mean, Cromwellt wrote my name on this talk page. I was away from Wikipedia for years. I came back, but doing only a small number of edits. I saw a thingy that said that Cromwellt had said my name on this talk page (last year). So I came. Maybe I'll do other things. Maybe just a small number of things. Maybe I won't. I see that a big number of words have pages. Good work! I'm happy that you're still using the [[Template:verb|verb template]] that I helped edit where I put in a big number of <nowiki>{</nowiki>'s. I think there's vandalism on [[Wiktionary:Simple talk]]. I've been away a long time so I'm not quite sure about fixing it. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 22:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) :I forgot to say: Don't email me. I might not see it. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 22:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) : (Note) I have reverted the vandalism at [[Wiktionary:Simple talk]]. [[User:MathXplore|MathXplore]] ([[User talk:MathXplore|talk]]) 01:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) :Hi, Coppertwig! It's been a very long time. Welcome back! :I must say, I haven't been the author of all that many new pages. The vast majority are due to Minorax, who is prolific beyond reason. MathXplore has been especially helpful with categories, and Victor Bob has gone over our smaller-category words with a fine-toothed comb. I've probably missed some folks. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 11:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) == Negatives None == At [[be]] it says negatives: "None, isn't, aren't". I think "None" should not be there. Is it OK if I try to edit templates to delete that "None"? Do you know which template needs to be changed? How do I make a template for testing, that can be deleted later? I guess I did that before but forgot how. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) <span style="color:Orange; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 15:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) :By "none", what it means is that ''am'' doesn't have an ''amn't''. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 19:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC) ::Right. I thought of that and hoped to come back and say so before you answered! Maybe some of these things we talked about years ago. Maybe the talk page for each word is a better place to talk about it; then I wouldn't say it again years later after I forget. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) :::But ... in slang and some dialects, there's "ain't" as the negative of "am". Maybe there isn't room for that in the template, but I think somewhere on the page it should say that. Maybe in a section called "Note"? Or possibly the template could say "None (or ain't), isn't, aren't"? <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 16:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC) ::::Sure [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Also at [[be]] it has 6 definitions and some of them say "(auxiliary)" or "(linking)" but I think only 6 should say "(auxiliary)" and only 1 and 4 should say "(linking)". Is it OK if I change that, or am I wrong? <span style="color:Green; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) :At a quick glance, it looks correct as it is. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 19:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) ::Makes no sense to me but you know more than I do. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) At [[gonna]] I think the 3rd person singular should be gonna, not None. I think there is no 3rd person singular for [[hafta]] but there is for gonna. I created page [[hafta]]. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 15:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC) :Again, I think this is correct, unless you're considering the non-standard ''he gonna''. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 19:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) ::What about "He's gonna", "It's gonna", etc.? It's gonna be hard to argue against those. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) :::Wait -- maybe you're right. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) == Related Words and See Also == Here [https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fuchsia&diff=523011&oldid=522672] someone changed "See Also" to "Related Words" using AWB after another user had already changed it back to "See Also" after a discussion on my talk page. What's the right way? <span style="color:Green; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) :I've undid the edit. --[[User:Minorax|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C">Min☠︎rax</span>]]^{&laquo;&brvbar;[[User talk:Minorax|'''talk''']]&brvbar;&raquo;} 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ::Thanks. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 23:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) == Next == Hello, Prof. Brett. I'm not sure whether the word ''next'' in a sentence like ''The next high tide is at 4 o'clock'' is a determinative or not. What do you think？ [[User:Victor Bob|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Victor Bob'''</span>]] [[User talk:Victor Bob#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 11:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC) :I think not. I'm not even fully confident that it's ever a determinative. Same with ''last''. However, as long as we're going along with ''CGEL'' on this, then I think ''next high tide'' would have the determinative ''next'', but not ''the next high tide''. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 14:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == <section begin="announcement-content" /> :''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' Dear Wikimedian, You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]]. Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> [[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_3&oldid=26721208 --> == Words == Good day Brett. Mind assisting in creating the words linked at [[Wiktionary:RecentChanges/Wanted pages]]? Thanks in adv. --[[User:Minorax|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C">Min☠︎rax</span>]]^{&laquo;&brvbar;[[User talk:Minorax|'''talk''']]&brvbar;&raquo;} 02:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) == Talkback == {{talkback|Talk:familiarity}} [[User:MathXplore|MathXplore]] ([[User talk:MathXplore|talk]]) 12:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) == Content dispute at [[weeaboo]] == As an uninvolved admin, can you decide what to do with the latest changes? Do you think semi-protection is needed here? [[User:MathXplore|MathXplore]] ([[User talk:MathXplore|talk]]) 01:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC) :thanks! [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) == Pairs of words == Should the definition of [[text message]] be created, or is that just a combination of [[text]] and [[message]]? [[Special:Contributions/2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B|2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B]] ([[User talk:2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B|talk]]) 00:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC) :Sure. An email is a message that is text, but it isn't a text message. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Should the definition of [[artificial intelligence]] be created, or is that just a combination of [[artificial]] and [[intelligence]]? [[Special:Contributions/2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B|2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B]] ([[User talk:2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B|talk]]) 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) :Also, yes, I think. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) What about [[social class]], [[upper class]], [[middle class]], [[working class]], and [[lower class]]? [[Special:Contributions/2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B|2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B]] ([[User talk:2607:F140:6000:806A:4D8:2D05:C32F:E63B|talk]]) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) :Also, yes, I think. [[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 13:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) == Edit request == On the second definition for [[nobility]], would you please change "who" to "whom"? I tried to change this but it stopped me and called me a vandal. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:9083:5730:AC8D:59AE:3FD1:11A0|2601:644:9083:5730:AC8D:59AE:3FD1:11A0]] ([[User talk:2601:644:9083:5730:AC8D:59AE:3FD1:11A0|talk]]) 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC) :''Who'' is perfectly acceptable in that position and has been for decades. See, for example, from page 8 of ''The Cambridge grammar of the English Language'', :*"It has been a common assumption of prescriptivists that only formal style is grammatically correct. The quotation about ''whom'' given above is representative of this view, for ''whom'' can be a marker of relatively formal style, being commonly replaced by ''who'' in informal style (see Ch. 5, §16.2.3, for a detailed account of the use of these two forms)." :To be clear, there is no requirement or even preference for definitions to be in a formal style. :That said, since you are the one who added ''who'', I assume this wasn't your intention, so I've made the change for you.[[User:Brett|Brett]] ([[User talk:Brett|talk]]) 00:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) i0zx3p24rrowi1fekalbi65y3rknrmb 0 2649 534021 522865 2024-10-23T11:54:18Z Minorax 27347 534021 wikitext text/x-wiki {{BE850}} {{BNC1HW}} === Pronunciation === * {{UK}} {{IPA|/ˈsɛk.rə.tə.ri/|/ˈsɛk.rə.tri/}} * {{US}} {{enPR|sĕk'rətĕrē}}, {{IPA|/ˈsɛk.(r)əˌtɛr.i/|[ˈsɛk.(r)əˌtʰɛr.i]}} * {{audio|en-us-secretary.ogg|US}} == Noun == {{noun|2=secretaries}} # {{countable}} A '''secretary''' is a person who works in an [[office]], helping with [[type|typing]] letters, [[file|filing]], and other simple [[task]]s. #: ''I will ask my '''secretary''' to write to them.'' === Related words === * [[secretarial]] * [[secretariat]] * [[office assistant]] [[Category:Jobs]] 3r96l3fhncu2dt23j0xqof8tmh6ry3c 0 3297 534020 501961 2024-10-23T11:54:11Z Minorax 27347 534020 wikitext text/x-wiki {{BE850}} === Pronunciation === * {{UK}} {{IPA|UK [ˈlaɪbrəri]}} {{SAMPA|UK /"laIbr@ri/}} * {{US}} {{IPA|[ˈlaɪbrɛri]}} {{SAMPA|/"laIbrEri/}} * {{audio|en-us-library.ogg|US}} == Noun == {{noun|library|libraries}} [[File:Long Room Interior, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg|thumb|A library]] # {{countable}} A '''library''' is a [[place]] where [[book]]s and other [[media]] are kept, usually on [[shelf|shelves]]. Most of the time, people are allowed to [[borrow]] these things. #: ''I borrowed books at the public '''library''' today.'' # {{countable}} A '''library''' is a [[collection]] of books of other media. A person may call his/her collection of books a '''library'''. #: ''The [[university]]'s online [[classical music]] '''library''' is very large.'' === Related words === * [[librarian]] [[Category:Buildings and structures]] [[Category:Rooms]] [[Category:Books]] m9qw3gfcomx11iwse8k6wgszeid42a3 0 41730 534019 498603 2024-10-23T11:54:07Z Minorax 27347 534019 wikitext text/x-wiki === Word parts === {{ety-suffix|problem|atic}} === Pronunciation === * {{UK}} {{IPA|/ˌprɒblɛˈmætɪk/}} * {{US}} {{IPA|/ˌprɑblɛˈmætɪk/}} * {{audio|LL-Q1860 (eng)-Vealhurl-problematic.wav|UK}} == Adjective == {{adj|more=true}} # If something is '''problematic''', it is causing a [[problem]]. #: ''Rush hour at the train station was very '''problematic'''.'' === Related words === * [[problem]] * [[problematize]] k9nkthdnzewz9m7lvpo25lzr3vm6t4k 3 70012 534016 2024-10-22T21:51:53Z MathXplore 31658 Created page with "== October 2024 == {{subst:uw-create1}} ~~~~" 534016 wikitext text/x-wiki == October 2024 == [[File:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wiktionary. A page you made{{#if:|, [[:{{{1}}}]],}} may not meet our [[Wiktionary:Rules|rules]] for new pages, so it will shortly be [[Wiktionary:Deletion policy|removed]] (if it hasn't been already). Please use the [[Wiktionary:Sandbox|sandbox]] for any tests. You may also want to read our [[Wiktionary:Welcome|introduction page]] to learn more about changing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-create1 --> [[User:MathXplore|MathXplore]] ([[User talk:MathXplore|talk]]) 21:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC) ggf2lm1zrrvzjdfcb5ns8gfoowv5qvf 0 70013 534018 2024-10-23T10:49:01Z Brett 77 Created page with "=== Pronunciation === * {{IPA|/ætɪk/}} == Suffix == {{suffix}} # Used to form adjectives, usually from nouns, indicating a relationship or characteristic of something. #: ''The new law had a [[problematic]] impact on the community.'' (''problem'' + '''''atic''''') #: ''Her explanations were very [[automatic]].'' (''auto-'' + '''''atic''''') [[Category:Terms suffixed with -atic|*]]" 534018 wikitext text/x-wiki === Pronunciation === * {{IPA|/ætɪk/}} == Suffix == {{suffix}} # Used to form adjectives, usually from nouns, indicating a relationship or characteristic of something. #: ''The new law had a [[problematic]] impact on the community.'' (''problem'' + '''''atic''''') #: ''Her explanations were very [[automatic]].'' (''auto-'' + '''''atic''''') [[Category:Terms suffixed with -atic|*]] s7j9knu7c8kmozgzl0b0kbjxz217mo8