Talk:Determiner

message: Under "English determiners" we have (emphasis added)
*Demonstratives: this, that, these, those, which, etc. (when used with noun phrases)
: Yes, this is a problem. It should NOT say "when used with noun phrases".--BrettR 02:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some is a determiner.--BrettR 02:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in Pick up some of those chocolate donuts from the bakery, would you?? Are you saying that these words are always determiners and never pronouns? --RJCraig 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In fact, CGEL gives this "partative construction": ~ of the (noun) as a test for membership in the determiner (they call it determinative) category. There are only 4 words that are both determiners and pronouns: which, what, you, and we.--BrettR 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ref. I'll have a look later in the day. (Time to roll out the futon now, tho.) --RJCraig 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the distinction is a fine one here, but it's part of a coherent system that allows for headless noun phrases. This conceptualisation also applies to adjectives. If you allow headless noun phrases, then you can also deal with adjectives in the form of "the good, the bad, and the ugly". If you don't then you have to allow that almost every adjective has a corresponding noun form, a conclusion that isn't particularly parsimonious.--BrettR 02:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the less I see the connection here. I have no problem with headless noun phrases or their use in explaining adjectival examples such as the rich, etc. I'm just not yet convinced the same explanation need be extended to These are the good. --RJCraig 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't see the distinction your making. Another example?--BrettR 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction my making is simple. (Sorry! Couldn't resist!) Let's make sure I'm understanding what you're saying in the above, just to be safe. To wit: determiners such as these (in my example above) or some when used without a noun are NOT pronouns but remain determiners inside a headless noun phrase...similar to the structure posited for phrases with adjectives such as the rich or the good, the bad, and the ugly. Was that not the purpose in bringing up headless noun phrases? Please correct me if I have misunderstood your intent. --RJCraig 06:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...--BrettR 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see your point.--BrettR 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Can you help me understand the difference between a quantifying determiner and a distributive determiner? I'm not seeing anything clear in the references, and the definition of a distributive determiner given here isn't cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpot Wiz (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantifiers v Distributives 

message: Is the Determiner (class)#Differences from pronouns section correct?  The following is an excerpt:
# Pronouns may occur in tag questions. Determiners can't.
## This is delicious, isn't it?
## *This is delicious, isn't this?
That is definitely a difference between personal pronouns and demonstrative pronouns.  In English, determiners and corresponding pronouns often have the same form, but it's not always true in other languages.  The difference between determiners and pronouns is that the former precede a noun while the latter don't. - TAKASUGI Shinji 12:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question has no meaning, of course, if you assume pronouns are determiners, as Paul Postal did first. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences from pronouns 

message: I have proposed that Possessive adjective be renamed to Possessive determiner, because my, your, etc. are actually determines, not adjectives.  The article seems to receive little attention, and I have had only one response.  I'll appreciate it if you write your opinions on Talk:Possessive adjective#Requested move. - TAKASUGI Shinji 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possesive adjectives or possessive determiners 

message: "Determiner (class)" doesn't seem a terribly helpful title. "Class" could refer to pretty much anything. Might it be better to rename the article "Determiner (grammar)" or "Determiner (linguistics)" or something like that? Matt 23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: Over at the English Wiktionary, it appears that we may be facing a vote regarding whether to allow determiner as a "part of speech heading" for English words. Anyone willing to make arguments for or against should make themselves heard here.--Brett (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determiners at English Wiktionary 

message: Does anybody else find this sentence ...questionable?
:A determiner is a class of words that typically functions as a determiner (function)...
rowley (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language finds it objectionable and used "determinative" for the word class and "determiner" for the function. I would have argued for the opposite. ""Determiner" is a class of words that typically function as determinatives ...". But I cannot find a dictionary that accepts this. If they have a definition of determinative in a grammatical sense, the definition is "determiner". I don't know about the OED. DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to start? 

message: Merged with Determiner (function) as per consensus on Talk:Determiner (function)  Jubilee♫clipman 04:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: Now that the two articles have been merged should this article be moved to Determiner (that DAB page being somewhat redundant)?  Jubilee♫clipman 04:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page. While the dab page could be overwritten and replaced with hatnotes, there has been no evidence presented here that Determiner (class) is the primary topic of the search term "determiner". Dekimasuよ! 11:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Determiner (class) → Determiner — — Determiner (class) and Determiner (function) were merged per consensus and DAB affix no longer needed. Dest page was DAB page and has history. — Jubilee♫clipman 04:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
But I think it's clear that "(class)" no longer makes any sense, if it ever did. I'll move it to "(linguistics)". CapnPrep (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: "Traditional English grammar" as opposed to, I assume, generative grammar? Could someone please drop a few words as to when, by whom and in what context the concept "determiner" (or "determinative") was introduced and / or accepted by the scientific community? Thanx Dan ☺ 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some background information 

message: The Article questions whether numbers are actually determiners, giving the example 'English numerals for 100 or larger need a determiner, such as "a hundred men."'  However, "hundred" is not actually a number, whereas "one hundred" is.  In this form numbers over 99 are still used as determiners, e.g. "one hundred men".
It would seem that in the context of phrases such as "a hundred men", "hundred" may represent a noun/prepositional clause equivalent to "hundred of" DavidRatonyi (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement in the article is definitely wrong, since e.g. "two hundred fifty men" doesn't need a determiner (and you can't analyze this as "hundred fifty men" with the determiner "two", since this would mean 2 * 150 = 300 men…) I would say that "one hundred" and "a hundred" are just free variants of the same numeral. As usual: find a source and add it. CapnPrep (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers as Determiners 

message: Perhaps ordinal numberings (first, second, ..., penultimate, ultimate, last) should be called out as well as cardinal (one, two, ...) determiners?
: These words describe a property, so they are probably adjectives and not determiners. You can also use them with a copula. CodeCat (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinal Determiners?