Talk:Grammatical particle

message: Why is the tone of this article speculative and not academic? It reads like its main authors didn't have much of a formal background in linguistics.--69.226.232.133 17:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is your chance to put that right, and change it into an article more positive and more academically authentic and supply the "formal background in liguistics" you are missing. No time like the present, as they say. We are all Wikipedians. Dieter Simon 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm responsible for a recent rewrite of the first paragraph and I did write that with my formal background in linguistics in mind. My two cents would be that there is no rigid formal linguistic definition of the term 'grammatical particle'. And I fully concur with Dieter Simon — if you know ways to improve the article, by all means do it! — mark ✎ 07:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article speculative and not academic? 

message: Since you know so much more than I do about particles in Asian languages, I invite you to write a really great addition to this part of the article. As you may see this was not written by myself, so I can't comment on what was written. Good luck, it does look it needs some elaboration. Dieter Simon 22:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Particles in Asian Languages

message: Firstly, sorry for disturbing any wiki-etiquette, never used the site.
Verb phrases are mentioned as particles, but the entire phrase is mentioned as a particle (not just the preposition), earlier however the definition is stated as a word (or phrase) that cannot be inflected.  However, I can easily say "put off" or "stop putting off your chores and do them" there, it's been inflected.
Have I misunderstood?  Or perhaps you were referring to the phrase when used as a noun. e.g. "They were finally given the go ahead to start the project." (that, can't be inflected)
And someone made reference to particles in Asian languages?  I speak Mandarin and some Japanese and could give a thorough explanation of their functions...should I? 
--124.78.83.152 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there may be a misunderstanding as to the definition of grammatical particle and that of phrasal verb. It is the grammatical particle (or particle for short) as a function word which is the uninflected word, not the phrasal verb. The phrasal verb does indeed consist of inflected, as well as uninflected parts. So every time a word which cannot have its form changed, have affixes added, or is inflected in any way that is the particle, such as "to", "the", "over", and the many others cited in the article 'grammatical particle'. However, a 'phrasal verb' does indeed consist of a verb, a preposition, an adverb, etc. and it is the verb which may be inflected but not the prepositions and the adverbs (not those ending in -ly) which are uninflected. The inclusion of 'verb phrase' as an alternative term for 'phrasal verb' is indeed misleading, and I shall take it out because it cannot be understood in this context. So, yes, you are right, it is misleading. Dieter Simon 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasal verbs/verb phrases?

message: We have a red link for "sentence connector", so I shall be writing a new article for this as there isn't one in Wikipedia. The term definitely exists out there, and there are a number of sources for it on the Internet. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing a new article for "sentence connector"

message: ...because it's not a word. It's a noncommunicative sound. If snoring is language then by the same logic the sound of chewing, breathing, etc. would also have to be considered language. Westknife (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Snoring is a noncommunicative sound. Zzz is an English word that conventionally represents this sound, and I suppose it would have to be classified as an interjection. But I don't care if it's on or off the list. As long as we replace it with brrrr… CapnPrep (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't seem to have. Anyway, what's the difference? Is it anti-zzz and pro-brrrr week? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I took "zzz" off the list of interjections... 

message: If the bot takes it out, please can someone with more privilege correct it. The old Geocities link is dead and the page has moved to http://siamsmile.webs.com/thaiparticles/thaiparticles.html. 
Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blutey (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected Thai Particles link 

message: You bet.  If GPs are a word class or part of speech, which seems clear to me, only words that do not fall into other classes can be particles.  All particles are uninflectable (this seems not to be contentious), but it does not seem logical to say that all uninflectable words are particles, since they usually have perfectly good functions, e.g. conjunctions, prepositions.  This is true of nearly all the examples given previously, which I've axed BTW.
However if GPs are merely non-inflecting words (i.e. the definition is based on grammatical behaviour not lexical function), a word could be both a particle and an adverb, preposition, conjunction etc.  This seems counter-intuitive and IMO serves no obvious purpose.
Anyway I've tried to make the article internally consistent and indicate where there is ambiguity.  NB I don't regard the German website cited by a previous editor as the best authority for English grammar.  I don't propose to engage in dispute, which seems to me fruitless.  Language is after all about communication.  The article needs an expert and I've so tagged it.
The reference to "function words" was removed since the definition of function words conflicts with that of particles.  The following reference was removed, but is put here in case anyone wants to reinstate it: http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/Glossary_main.html Interjections
IMO the best candidate for a particle in modern spoken English is like as in the ubiquitous 'He was like, "Oh my God!" '  Chrismorey (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing? 

message: "In Latin, particles are the adverb, the preposition, the conjunction and the interjection (a word that has emotion"
What is the meaning of this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's not very clearly worded, and "a word that has emotion" is just nonsense. I'll have a go at rewording it, though I'll have not objections if someone removes the whole section altogether. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've removed it all: there's no point in merely mentioning that in language X such-and-such word classes are particles, unless there's some actual examples of e.g. how they're delimited. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: Why the abbreviation is ptcl in small capitals font, and not PTCL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Glossing abbreviations are normally formatted in small caps. And as to why small caps are formatted the way they are, you can ask at Template talk:Smallcaps. – Uanfala (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird 

message: What is a grammatical signals? 103.91.143.180 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for noticing, IP reader. It has been corrected.--FeralOink (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  English  

message: I am going to change the subheadings in the article. It doesn't make sense to have English as a major heading, then various other languages (which actually seem to use particles more than English does!) be subordinate/lower level headings.
I am going to remove the content contained in the WP:OR tagged subheading and copy it here, for the following reasons:
# It has been tagged original research since March 2017, without any remedial efforts in the intervening SIX (6) years;
# It is redundant, i.e. it repeats content that is already in the lead and other parts of the article, specifically, examples in the English language.
# Although it is the second sub-heading to appear in the article, it references examples in the English language only. Yet the single source provided as a reference is about the German language. (That source is a parked domain although it has been archived).
If anyone wants to re-insert this content, it will be available. FeralOink (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  English not subordinate to other languages; Original research is redundant