Talk:Solecism

message: The etymology was removed  . I believe that it is important to the article and not just a dictionary entry. If anyone else believes the same, you can put it back.--FocalPoint 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the etymology as such is irrelevant, since this article is about solecisms, not about the term solecism. Nonetheless, if you want to add some historical information on solecisms, it might be worth noting that Athenians considered such-and-such dialect to be full of solecisms and that this is indeed the source of the term. —RuakhTALK 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the distinction between "historical information" and "etymology" may be worth considering (but seems a bit too 'subtle' for my liking) I modified the relevant section just because the prose itself was stilted and unnatural. If you want to change it to still avoid "etymology", please try to keep it readable for a general audience. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: My understanding of "solecism" is that it usually applies to prescriptively incorrect usage within a standard dialect or register of a language. The "ain't" example, though, is just one of many examples of regional or lower-class English dialects, which is a somewhat different concept from a solecism. Surely describing a particular sentence of Cockney English as solecistic would be odd, for example. --Delirium 07:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That wasn't my understanding at all — after all, the word is named after a group of Greeks that, in the view of the Athenians, spoke incorrectly — but etymology isn't destiny, and if you have reliable sources that support your understanding, then obviously that wins out. —RuakhTALK 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You're conflating two different points. Assuming Solecism is to be an actual article (as opposed to a redirect or something), it should be about solecisms. Its scope is therefore circumscribed by the definition of the word solecism, and the etymology of the word might be relevant to us as editors insofar as it helps us understand the definition correctly and therefore give the article its proper scope. The article, however, is not about the word "solecism", and as the etymology of the word "solecism" does not seem to say very much about solecisms — indeed, if Delirium is correct, then the etymology of the word doesn't even say very much about the word's current definition — then it's not worth including in the article. (This is a frequent debate, however, and as a standard compromise, Wikipedia makes a habit of linking to Wiktionary entries for the words we use as article titles; so, for example, Solecism links to wiktionary:solecism, which does have etymological information.) —RuakhTALK 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the ain't example is kind of odd 

message: playing devil's advocate, i would propose that the article be deleted since it contains little information about solecism beyond an attempted dictionary definition.
TrumpingTon 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. So you don't think the article should be deleted, but you're proposing its deletion anyway? Devil's advocacy can be useful, but in this case it seems rather silly. —RuakhTALK 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does this article serve any purpose? 

message: The solecism is in "nowhere", not ain't. Correctly used, dialect isn't solecism. --Dweller (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He ain't going nowhere" 

message: I believe that the origin of the term is important, especially in the context of an encyclopedia. Since this has not been accepted in the past by one person, I repeat the proposal here, to see if any kind of consensus can be formed. For your info, the intended text to be added is:
Origin of the term
Ancient Athenians considered the dialect of the inhabitants of their colony Soli in Cilicia to be a corrupted form of their own pure Attic dialect, full of "solecisms". This is how the term originated.
--FocalPoint (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I can't hold back any longer.  
A few of us were involved in a bet a while back the result of which was a challenge to make up a totally specious article on Wikipedia and see whether it developed a life of its own.  The rationale was that so many Wikipedia 'editors' would barely know sound information if it fell from a tree and hit them on the head.  
Well, this article was the one.  It has developed a life of its own.  I must confess that we have popped in from time to time to add a little 'life' to the content.  
Great, Wikipedia, where would we be without you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.85.159 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the joke's on you. This is a perfectly worthwhile article, and if you can't tell the difference there's a dunce cap out there waiting for you somewhwere.Oliverave (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confession: joke! 

message: The part complaining about: "People have been evacuated" -- but surely it's normally "$people have been evacuated from $location", making $location the thing that is being evacuated, no?  So no pooing or spewing, apart from stricken locations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.74.2 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evacuated 

message: "[People] have been evacuated" for "[Place] has been evacuated" (The thing {town} evacuated is that from which other things {people} depart. If people are the thing, the other things are generally considered to be feces or bodily fluids. Hence, nobody has left, but they have vomited or soiled themselves.)
This is utter BS. Check any dictionary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.253.22 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  evacuated 

message: From the article:
"The issue is, is his attitude is poor." for "The issue is his attitude is poor." (see double copula)
These two sentences are at odds as far as I can tell. This should have a question mark: "The issue is, is his attitude is poor." Thus:  "The issue is, is his attitude is poor?" This should have a relative article or pronoun (if that's the right term):  "The issue is his attitude is poor." Thus: "The issue is that his attitude is poor." or "The issue is whether /or not/ his attitude is poor."
NEITHER example in the article is completely grammatically correct. Both are, however, examples of sloppy writing. But aren't we all?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverave (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Example 

message: I propose adding a solecism example:
::"This needs washed", should be: "This needs to be washed". (An example of regional Infinitival copula deletion).    
:::::Evidence supporting this addition: - Professor Barbara Johnstone, who studies Pittsburghese at Carnegie Mellon, calls the phenomenon Infinitival Copula Deletion.  “To be” is a copula, also known as a linking verb, in its infinitive form, and that is what gets deleted from the sentence. Grammar Girl says it is regional and “fails the cover-letter test”.   Copula deletion has been studied as a common mistake not acceptable in Standard American English.  The major usage guides all agree that it is not normal. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage calls it a “curious construction” and notes that The Longman Dictionary of English Language calls it “widely disliked,” and the Dictionary of American Regional English calls it an idiom. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English calls it dialect and nonstandard, noting that the applicable grammatical rule is:  action verbs (e.g., need, want, like) must be followed by a noun or object phrase.  The only example of two verbs juxtaposed in accepted Standard American English is the idiom "I stand corrected." 
::Does anyone have any reasons not to add the single-line-example above?  Talk to me!  CathMontgomery (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the single line to the article.  CathMontgomery (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, however, that this needs washing is good standard English. The difference is that washing is a verbal noun (gerund?), but washed is a verbal adjective; to be washed could translate a single-word verbal noun in another language. (I'm adding this note for the benefit of non-native speakers of English.) --  Solo Owl   16:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additional example, with references 

message: The examples in the sections headed "Wrong grammatical person" and "Wrong pronoun" are misplaced. In both examples, the choice of pronoun seems correct, and in the first example, the choice of the first-person pronoun seems correct, but they are both examples of wrong grammatical case. I have combined the sections and corrected the heading. (I am thinking that this could be the "joke" claimed by an anonymous IP commenter.)
Examples of wrong grammatical person abound in the King James Version of the Old Testament, especially in speeches attributed to God, which move unpredictably back and forth between first person and third person. This may reflect the Hebrew original, which was not written and edited under the influence of hyper-logical grammarians and schoolmasters. (Some modern English translations flag the Hebrew solecisms in the footnotes, and correct them in the English text.)
In the same work you can also find examples of wrong grammatical number.
I will add a couple of examples when I come across them in my reading. --  Solo Owl   16:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors of grammatical case 

message: Is the all-too-common use of "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less" a solecism?  If so, would it be useful as an example?  If it's not a solecism, what is it? Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many ways to give "I could care less" sensible meaning for it to qualify. EEng (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I could care less 

message: I deleted the first row of the table, which purported to give an example of incorrect subject-verb agreement. The example was, "He ain't going nowhere." The subject, "he," is clearly singular, while the verb, "ain't," can be construed as singular, so there is no disagreement. The real error in that sentence (if you want to call it an error) is the double negative. However, double negatives are dealt with in another row in the table; therefore, there was no need for the first row, and I deleted it. If anyone wants to contribute an actual example of incorrect subject-verb agreement, feel free to do so! 74.71.92.117 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject-verb agreement 

message: The first entry about poor attitude corrects it by removing the second "is"; the second corrects this correction by adding a "that". Is there really any agreement that a subordinate conjunction is required in this case? Other subordinate conjunctions do not fit here. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:C494:4F4F:F5AE:7AE4 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page is longer than article 

message: The Examples section/table seems peculiarly scant, so I checked the history to see if it'd been edited. It seems it was truncated (on Oct. 12, 2019; previous edit that Feb: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solecism&oldid=882815994) for its entries being "prescriptivist and anti-idiomatic," which seems odd given that the article is about a term "often used in the context of linguistic prescription." It seems to me that we can describe and explain prescriptivist terms without ourselves being prescriptivist. I think the examples which were removed gave a clearer picture of Solecism. I suggest some or all of them be re-added or reworked. I will not attempt to  make the edit because I am not an expert in this field.
PLB527097 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Previous Examples Section/Table Truncation 

message: Misuse of Comparative and Superlative Forms can also involve using a superlative when there are only two items mentioned.
(hope this inspire further expansion) Stjohn1970 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  another aspect  

message: I don't think "me" is ever a standard pronoun but I agree that "it's between you and me" is the right expression. And only because in English the "better question" is "whom is this thing between?" and not "between who and who is this thing?". And only because plurality is better conveyed in the question by "whom". I think a better example would have been "he gave this to you and I" instead of the correct "you and me". Because "to give" in this respect is more clear than "to be". And still, though, it sounds better to me "he put this between you and I" than "between you and me". In Spanish the standard is to say "between you and I", for the same reason that saying in English "It's I" is the proper sentence (instead of "it's me"). Also, how is this an example of Catachresis? I think it's not.Rubentomas (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is I