Talk:Pro-form

message: Hi there! 
I've just read this:
"Spanish and other Romance languages show this same three-way distinction, which dates back to Latin."
That last assertion sounds pretty wrong. 
In modern Spanish, there are indeed 3 forms of demonstratives:
(in singular)
[proximal] este,aquí  
[medial] ese,ahí  
[distal] aquel, allí/allá
However, they don't work the way that those in Japanese are described in the article. [note: I know almost nothing about Japanese, I base my comment on the very content of this article. On the other hand, I'm a native speaker of Spanish (from Spain).] 
Firstly, the "medial" ones don't imply closeness to the _addressee_, and never have.
Secondly, nowadays the distinction between medial and distal has largely disappeared. Both forms are still in use, but do not convey a meaning of such strong difference in distance. Medial ones are by far the most frequently used. Distal forms are kept in idioms and figures of speech.
So I intend to change the phrase to:
"Spanish and other Romance languages show a similar three-way distinction, which dates back to Latin."
Any problem, let me know.
Greets :)
MasterMan 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish 3-way distinction 

message: Shouldn't the word "both" go in the space for "Pronoun - Out of two" and "Universal"? It seems to me that "both" accurately fits those specifications. Also, is this Zamenhof's entire table? Is it even proper to edit a work of someone else's to add accuracy? 
Thanks. mattmpg23 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Zamenhof's correlatives actually are off-topic. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. Esperanto is a constructed language; it's structural framework doesn't bear a reliable relationship to that of natural languages, and I'm not sure that forcing English to fit the format of the table really gives an accurate representation of the language, especially when it contains so many questionable forms (see below). It's useful giving examples of each of the categories - pronoun, pro-adjective, and so on - but this table is a misleading format in which to do so. Matt Keefe (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  L. L. Zamenhof's Table 

message: Are determiners pro-adjectives? Are numerals pro-adjectives? Greg-si (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no. A noun can be substituded for neither and still constitute a sentence that potentially mean the same thing. Compare the dogs ate ==> they ate, in contrast to the chess-players drank ale =/=> seven drank ale. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-adjectives 

message: Shouldn't there be a column for relative forms in English?
: The elective column needs subdividing -- TimNelson (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives in English 

message: What's about some words like: "Whose" "Ever", or "Forever"???, I think they should be in the table too.
Moreover, in the "pro-adverb" section (or elsewhere) there should be a section related to DETERMINERS OF AMOUNT (For both countable and uncountable nouns), For example: interrogative: How many/much, demostrative: that/this/these many, That/this/ much, Elective: any much/however much, etc... It would improve the table much better than it is now. Does someone have any suggestion? I will waiting for a response  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioserghio (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing words in the Pro-form table 

message: why are Greek, Latin and Sanskrit used as examples of interrogative and nonintervention pro-forms being split? they all are Indo-European languages, undercutting the point of the paragraph?
35.24.32.134 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing examples 

message: Am I correct to say that this usage is a pro-clause?
* She always forgets her keys, which frustrates me.
* When I was seven, my best friend died, which caused me to be depressed.
* I broke his trust, which made him hate me.
B23Rich (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-clause: which 

message: The set of "correlatives" shown here seems much broader than the definition in Correlative.  Either that article or this one could do with some clarification.  —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is or is not a correlative