Talk:Transformational grammar

message: Hello, I am a Spanish wikipedian who has begun a stub in Wikibooks about the rules governing the language according to the Transformational grammar. All of you are welcome to participate on it. Thank you :) --Javier Carro 11:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[wikibooks:User:Javier Carro/Transformational Grammar|Wikibook about transformational grammar]] 

message: I've moved this tag from the article:
The article could do with more citations, but I think tags like this belong on the talk page rather than article space unless there is a good reason, and I don't think there's a good enough reason here.  Enchanter 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any references cited for the article. Unless you intend to start providing references very soon, I intend to move the tag back to the article page. Placing the tag on the talk page is, in my opinion, hiding it away so no one will notice it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are there for the benefit of readers; the talk page is there for contributors to discuss what should be in the article.   That's why Wikipedia generally avoids putting comment, discussion and tags in articles unless necessary.  I can't see any benefit to the reader of the article of this tag; for them, it is a statement of the obvious (it's clear to anyone reading what is and isn't cited).  We shouldn't be writing "adverts" in the articles to get more contributors - that's just not appropriate in an encyclopedia article.  If we applied tags to every article that could do with some kind of improvement, most of our articles would be covered with them.  Also, just using a tag doesn't really help contributors much either; for example, it's not clear what specific aspects of the article you would like to see cited.  That's why this kind of material belongs on the talk page unless there is a good reason why the comment in the article would benefit readers. Enchanter 23:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We place all kinds of tags on article pages:  (specifically intended to go in a section on an article page), , , , , , , , , , , , , and many others, all of which serve as warnings to readers that they cannot necessarily rely on the article as a source of information. I think that  is quite mild compared to some of those. We need to be upfront about the deficiencies of articles. And putting those notices on the article pages is a goad to improve them. As for what needs to be sourced, everything in an article should have a source cited at some level. Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear that everything that goes into an article must be verifiable, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. If the article does not cite credible sources, then the article lacks credibility. If the articles are not credible, then Wikipedia is not credible. I'm reluctant to do this myself. I have a very long list of things I want to do in Wikipeia, and it has been 30 years since I've studied transformational grammar. If someone whose acquaintance with TG is more recent than mine wants to work on supplying references, I'll try to help. I do have a number of references in the house, but, as I said, I haven't opened them in 30 years or more. (Gah, I've just talked myself into another commitment!) -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other option would be to move the uncited material to the talk page. - FrancisTyers 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the whole article, right now. I just want to see some references cited. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sources

message: Some researchers have found a Parrot with 950 word vocabulary, who can generate new words.
--Ancheta Wis 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough data in that article to say. Claims such at this tend to become very thin and trivial when examined closely. -- Donald Albury 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this qualify as an example of a speaker with a transformational grammar ? 

message: The article on the split infinitive has a stub section claiming that there is a transformational grammar approach to understanding this construction.  Could someone who has worked on this aspect of linguistics please go there and write a paragraph explaining this?  Thanks,  --Doric Loon 11:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split infinitive

message: What is transformational grammar? The answer to this central question does not lie in the details of its properties (although fine that you include them to provide a more detailed understanding). What problem does it attempt to solve, or issue does it attempt to address? What is it for? What good is it in practice? What is transformational grammar?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tranformational grammar is a context free grammar plus rules that allow you to take one parse tree and form another according to well defined "pivoting rules". These rules preserve the meaning of the sentence, but change the form. According to Chomsky, natural language should be defined by both its grammar and transformations.Likebox (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: "grammar (especially of a natural language) that has been developed in a Chomskyan tradition"?  Is the antecedent of 'that' the word grammar (not language)?  (EnochBethany (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The central question 

message: This is the lead sentence in the article:  "In linguistics, a transformational grammar or transformational-generative grammar (TGG) is a generative grammar, especially of a natural language, that has been developed in a Chomskyan tradition."  The immediate question which arises is, what is the antecedent of the pronoun that?  The sentence should be transformed so as to be clear.  Is this what was meant:  
:"grammar (especially of a natural language) that has been developed in a Chomskyan tradition"?  Is the antecedent of 'that' the word grammar (not language)?  (EnochBethany (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical Obtuseness Needing Transformation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Transformational grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100919021754/http://chomsky.info/articles/195609--.pdf to http://www.chomsky.info/articles/195609--.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article doesn't mention that this theory has basically been disproved by studies since it's been written and is basically only useful for academics studying Chomsky specifically. Neuroelectronic (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add that yourself, citing reliable sources that say that. Without reliable sources that say that the theory has been disproven, we can't say that. - Donald Albury 17:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments