Talk:Grammar/Archive 1

message: This article should not be merged with article syntax; the terms have quite distinct meanings.  Let me quote from an undergraduate linguistics textbook (Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction,  William O'Grady, Michael Dobrovolsky, and Mark Aronoff, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989):
::"...a grammar... is an explicit system of elements and rules needed to form and interpret sentences.  All languages have a grammar consisting of the components listed in Table 1.1. Linguists use the term grammar in a rather special and technical sense."
Table 1.1 then lists the five components of a grammar, namely phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics, just as in the second paragraph of the current version of the article.  This makes it clear that syntax is simply one component of a grammar, and not equivalent to it. Merging the grammar and syntax articles would be like merging the radio and antenna articles.
Physicist 13:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I said the same thing on Talk:Syntax.  Shall we remove the tags?
Rhesusman 17:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Physicist 17:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge with [[syntax]] 

message: There is a disagreement at Talk:Healthy eating about whether the title should use "healthy" or "healthful". Anyone care to weigh in over there? Maurreen 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
That sort of question should be asked over at Talk:Disputed English grammar if anywhere, as it is a prescriptive question, not a descriptive one. --Torgo 07:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Healthy or healthful?

message: According to my intro linguistics textbook (Language files 8th Ed., Dept. of Linguistics at Ohio State University, 2001)
:"The mental grammar consists of those aspects of a speaker's knowledge of language that allow him or her to produce grammatical utterances... this kind of grammar is made up of knowledge of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics... Knowledge of pragmatics and language variation is not usually considered to be part of grammar proper, though it is an important part of your knowledge about language." (p. 8)
So, regarding a couple of the discussions above, in case there is still any question, yes, grammar includes phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
As a side note, according to this textbook, pragmatics is not considered part of grammar. Can someone second this? I noticed the article includes pragmatics as part of grammar. --Torgo 08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar includes phonology, morphology, etc.. not pragmatics?

message: We need the input of grammarians/linguists at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism at the section entitled "What does nonsense mean?".   Your input on the talk page will help immeasurably in the improvement of all wikipedia articles.pat8722 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling on grammarians for help on the vandalism page

message: Have unreverted the revert of large sections of the article (Development of grammars). You really cannot just revert large sections of an article, however  much you may disagree with what has been said. If you are going to remove sections you should always explain why you are doing so, and give sources of contrary evidence. Dieter Simon 23:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re the removal of a large sections of the article

message: Have reverted list for the time being, as I can't see the redundancy of that list in this "Grammar" article. I think such a redundancy should have been made obvious to the average reader, which I think it weasn't. Can we assume that the uninitiated reader can find his way around the history and discussions of the article to know there is such a list? Attention should have been drawn that the list is in "syntax", and what kind of list it is. As it stands, the syntax link is one of quite a number of other links in yet another list, not at all obvious. Dieter Simon 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical links list 

message: This section doesn't belong in this article. It's prescriptive (rather than descriptive) and is, at any rate, wrong. In addition to misspelling the word "ain't," using a word considered by many to sound informal and uneducated has nothing to do with grammar. It should be deleted in my opinion, but I didn't want to upset anyone by unilaterally doing it myself. So I'll let everyone else decide what to do with it. Cereal Box Conspiracy 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would add that it should probably not be titled "bad grammar". — Gwalla | Talk 07:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New "Bad Grammar" section. 

message: ... and that is the most ironic thing that I have ever seen. Someone prove me wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.8.159 (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When used as a term for the general subject (as with "physics" or "biology"), it acts as a mass noun and is not pluralized. However, when used to refer to the grammar of a specific language (or when used as the term for a book about the grammar of a language, as in "a reference grammar"), it is a count noun and can be pluralized in the usual way. — Gwalla | Talk 06:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree. (When used to refer to the grammar of a specific language) or of a set of languages, such as "the grammars of the Scandinavian languages..." Examples such as these surely must allow pluralization. Dieter Simon 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammars is perfectly OK.  garik 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't believe grammars is even an accepted plural for grammar... 

message: Should there not be a short article clarifying that "a grammar" often refers to a book summarising the grammar of a language, for learners and/or writers? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC
::Yes, Itsmejudith, I do see your point as regards to the countable or uncountable noun "grammar", but the way it is written, will it be understood by people who by chance read the sentence? On the practical side, are you saying that a book called "English Grammar" is in fact dealing with a different subject than a book called "an English Grammar"? If so, how does it differ? Is "English Grammar" not only about the English language, but a general book also about the history, etymology, typography or bibliography of the English language, while "an English Grammar" as each individual book published to teach, analyse or summarise English? You see, you suggest "descriptive grammar" but that redirects to Linguistic prescription in Wikipedia. Looks like a bit of a minefield to me.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All we need to do is to explain what is meant when someone says "I'll look that up in my grammar" or "I'm going to the bookshop to get a German grammar" or "she co-authored a Tagalog grammar". "A grammar" meaning "a book of grammar" can be prescriptive, descriptive or both. In my experience "a reference grammar" is used as often as "a grammar" in this context. "Students, look up this point in your reference grammar". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please go on and do it then, because as far as I can see there is no definition or encyclopaedic article of "reference grammar" in Wiki, so we can all see what it is. What is the difference between a "a grammar" and "a reference grammar"? As I said, you are telling us about a "descriptive grammar" which then redirects to "linguistic prescription", but nothing about "reference grammar". Dieter Simon (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "A reference grammar" is simply a book of grammar that is meant to be used as a reference book. Searching for it in Amazon I found for example: A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian by Martin Maiden and Cecilia Robustelli; A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish by John Butt and Carmen Benjamin; A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic (Georgetown Classics in Arabic Language and Linguistics) by Mark W. Cowell, Karin C. Ryding, and Margaret Nydell. These books are mainly for the use of second-language learners, but they are also used by teachers. They are overwhelmingly descriptive but there is no reason in principle why prescriptive rules should not also be covered. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reference grammar]] 

message: Re your edit: "Questions can come in many forms direct and indirect a direct question has the words who what where when and why. Indirect questions have inplied words such as tell explain or ellaborate". Don't forget, indirect questions can still have the "Wh-" forms, such as "please explain what the hero of the story intended to do". Of course you can also say "Explain the intentions the hero had". Have reverted your edit for the time being, perhaps you can let us know exactly what is meant. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:"Questions...direct and indirect" 

message: How does the word "singular" function in "Each language has its own distinct grammar (singular)."? Unfree (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "each language" (singular) has "its own distinct grammar" (singular). You could, of course, put it slightly differently: "all languages" (plural) have "their own grammars", stylistically not so good. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intent of the question was, "What is the point of including the word '(singular)' at the end of this sentence?", and I say, it has no point. That the word grammar is singular is obvious from the lack of an -s at the end. I've removed it as superfluous. +Angr 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see now where this came from. I first thought it was a general question on the part of Unfree. It is part of the introductory section of the article, and as such I think it is quite alright to leave it there. After all you got to introduce it somehow, but if you want to improve this section yourself, feel free. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Singular

message: This article appears to be the victim of vandalism.  Seeing that I am very inexperienced with editing and do not feel qualified to revert/pinpoint the correct reversion to you I figured I would point the vandalism out to the wikipedia editors at large, and I hope this is the correct place to do that.
"The first systematic grammars originated in Iron Age India, with Jesus, Isaac Newton and his commentators Peter, Paul, and Patrick Ewing."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.221.194 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you later did decide to fix it yourself. Thanks for helping to rid Wikipedia of vandalism! However, the best way to revert vandalism is not simply to remove the offending sentence, but rather to click "history" at the top of the page, find the most recent non-vandalized version, click on "prev", then click on "undo". That way, you make sure nothing gets lost. The way you did it, some good content got removed with the bad. (Which I've undone now.) +Angr 05:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help and the tip.  I'm not on here enough to edit consistently, but I'll keep that in mind for the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.221.194 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm sure it's interesting when it comes to linguistics the "LOL" in the introduction is unnecessary and hurts the article. The issue is I cannot find it in the source, yet it is there. Could a more well versed Wikipedian get rid of this? 70.79.130.140 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like somebody already reverted it before you posted. You may have been looking at a cached page. — Gwalla | Talk 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article currently confuses three topics 1. Grammar as the structure of (a) language 2. (a) grammar as a book describing the structure of a language 3. grammar as the sanctioned standards of usage in a given community (i.e. the conventions of the standard language). The article should keep those apart. Secondly it should describe the discussion of what grammar is in the first sense within theoretical linguistics: e.g. the Chomskyan view of grammar as a set of formal rules embedded in the brain, functionalist ideas of grammar as a set of tools and patterns, Hopper's emergent grammar, etc. Then it should also give an overview of central topics of grammar such as grammatical categories, morphosyntax, typology and the different theoretical approaches to describing them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas for new outline

message: In the History section, first sentence. Pāṇini is said to have lived in the 4th century BC, yet when you click to see his page, he is said to ahve lived in the 6th century. I'm not sure which is right, but it is inconsistent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.55.222 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistence 

message: "Prescriptive grammar is taught in primary school (elementary school). The term "grammar school" historically refers to schools teaching Latin grammar to future priests."
Specifically "The term "grammar school" historically refers to schools teaching Latin grammar to future priests." - does it? Good for it, but it's not really in the right article is it?
You discuss the different historic meanings for the term "grammar school" while stressing the importance of not confusing these terms with the "modern British grammar schools". Perhaps it would be helpful to take a sentence or two to describe what the " British grammar schools" are and how they differ from the historic ones. I am aware that you link the reader to a page on the modern grammar schools, however if you have taken the time to give a brief definition of the historic use for the term, I think it would be beneficial to quickly define the modern use. It will help to clarify the differences between the two for the reader, as well. Jlenz93 (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammer schools

message: History of linguistics states that further information is contained at History of grammar.  History of grammar states that further information is contained at History of linguistics.  The references should be hierarchical.  As History of grammar is a sub-section of Grammar it would seem logical that the more detailed information (the "further informmation") should be at History of linguistics.  The two need to be co-ordinated. LookingGlass (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that referencing is referencing itself or another similar subject or article, but it doesn't have a legitamate source to cite so that's why it's like that I assume. There needs to be an external peer reviewed journal or source for the history to reference to so this circular stuff does not keep happening. This will certainly help it become a bigger topic including many other links.--Psxiong (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular referencing 

message: Clearly i comprise composition, but compose comprisures.  They are composed of comprisures therefore comprised of composure.
In fact i am comprisimg right now. Please stay composed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.236.35 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprised of 

message: I'm not sure that the following really contributes much of use to the article, so I've removed it:
According to the Encyclopédie, "general grammar" has been used to denote the "rational science" of general principles governing all languages, while a "particular grammar" referred to the "art" of applying the conventions of one language to those general principles.Beauzée, Nicolas, and Jacques Philippe Douchet. "Grammar." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Julia Wallhager. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2015. Web. April 1, 2015. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0003.146>. Trans. of "Grammaire," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 7. Paris, 1757.
However, I can sort of imagine that something useful could be said that incorporates this information, so I'm posting it here in case anyone would like to use it, say for a section on the history of the term. Garik (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar in the Encyclopédie 

message: Hi Fellows,
I ran a useful website which deals with many aspects of Grammar so I added a link to it and I'll appreciate you approving it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirBr (talk • contribs) 5:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links added 

message: Punctuation has a big impact on grammar, it is also within the grammar categories, but the word punctuation doesn't even appear in this article once, I'm sure a description, long or short, should appear here, of how punctuation effects grammar, it's pretty important. I may try to work it in myself but language articles aren't normally my thing, someone else more experienced if you agree feel free to incorporate it somehow.  Carlwev  20:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, punctuation in fact has nothing to do with grammar as the concept of grammar is used among non-lay people. Punctuation and spelling are arbitrary conventions about how to represent language in writing. Grammar as undestood by linguists is the rules that govern how we build meaningful words and phrases. The common use of grammar to describe conventions of orthography and prescriptive statements about how people "ought to" speak is the most common miscnception about grammar. This of course means that the article should mention it, in order to debunk it. I have a draft of this article that I am working on that will include mention of the "grammar as spelling and style" misconception.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK fair enough, I need to read up on it more, I seem to have misunderstood, my dictionary also does not mention either term at the entry for the other. Should punctuation be in grammar categories then? Are they completely unlinked?  Carlwev  17:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Punctuation depends on grammar (for example: a period, which is punctuation, is used to mark the end of a sentence, which is determined by grammar) but it is not part of grammar. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would qualify that by saying that it depends partly on grammar, but that it also depends on conventions specific to orthography.  I think a good analogy is to think about whether information about vests and shirts should be included in the Torso article.  Garik (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you are saying and it's also a good thing that it's linked to another article because it is a different subject entirely, whether or not it should be discussed in this article is a minor thing but it helps add to the topic. The article should state which linguists define the term punctuation and how it should be used. --Psxiong (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned it in a grammar statement."Mr.Shaw shoul put the Finance Ministry in Bolt's foot" Doniea Brown (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Punctuations are compulsory here because it’s also a part of grammar. In some languages punctuations can create completely new meaning. The speaking skill is affected by punctuations.Furthermore some people say that it’s one of the five parts of grammar. Symoum Syfullah Priyo (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Punctuation]]?

message: [Moved here from the article space]
* "The Grammatisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart, a High German grammar" -- that's a dictionary (German: Wörterbuch) and not a grammar.
* "In 1643 there appeared Ivan Uzhevych's Grammatica sclavonica and, in 1762, the Short Introduction to English Grammar of Robert Lowth was also published.", "The Serbian grammar by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić arrived in 1814" -- and? Why mention some random grammars? There where European modern post-mediaeval times grammars for languages others than Latin before that, e.g. Griffith Roberts' Welsh grammar and a German grammar by Schottel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laraof (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections requested 

message: The Finnish link links to the page "kielioppi", which is often accepted as the correct translation for "grammar". However, the words have slightly different meanings: "kielioppi", unlike "grammar", includes for example orthography, whereas its article specifically states that semantics and pragmatics are not part of "kielioppi". As far as I know, neither English nor Finnish language has words that would fully fit the meanings of the word in other language. The question is, should the link be removed? BlueBanana (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The very first sentence in this article...
In linguistics, grammar (from Ancient Greek γραμματική) is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases and words in a natural language.
From the very first sentence in the Wikipedia article for Natural language...
In neuropsychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of language, a natural language or ordinary language is any language that has evolved naturally in humans through use and repetition without conscious planning or premeditation.
From me...
Considering those two things, the first sentence in this article implies languages created with conscious planning or premeditation do not, or cannot, have grammar.  Which is entirely misleading.  There are, in fact, a number of languages created with conscious planning / premeditation which have their own grammar.  The Klingon language made up for the Star trek franchise, is one example. It has a complete grammar (set of structural rules) which defines the composition of clauses, phrases, and words within it.
From the Wikipedia article for Klingon language...
Described in the 1985 book The Klingon Dictionary by Marc Okrand and deliberately designed to sound "alien", it has a number of typologically uncommon features. The language's basic sound, along with a few words, was first devised by actor James Doohan ("Scotty") and producer Jon Povill for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That film marked the first time the language had been heard on screen. In all previous appearances, Klingons spoke in English, even to each other. Klingon was subsequently developed by Okrand into a full-fledged language.
From me...
I have studied the Klingon language years ago and it has, in fact, a complete grammar (set of structural rules) governing the composition of clauses, phrases and words within it. See here for proof that unnatural languages can also have grammars, even complete grammars, in the Wikipedia article for Klingon grammar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_grammar
I do not know all the Wikipedia codes and such, and I do not wish to engage in changing articles myself.  Therefore, I suggest someone change the first sentence in this article to one of the following...
(minus the word "natural")
In linguistics, grammar (from Ancient Greek γραμματική) is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases and words in a language.
-or-
(change "in a natural language" to "in natural and unnatural languages")
In linguistics, grammar (from Ancient Greek γραμματική) is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases and words in natural and unnatural languages.
Thibeinn (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would simple remove the word "natural" and just state that languages have grammar, period.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  +1. All languages, even in the broadest sense of the term that is not intended here, have grammar, not only spoken and signed natural languages, but also constructed languages, programming languages, waggle dance, and many more. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Language? 

message: I looked at languages from Chinese and korean till spanish.
In all of them; the common element "AZ" that in persian means from; is present. In some languages it has the form of C,D,sta;and so on.
Many thanks  Amir Arab  194.86.153.167 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the genetive case; in english it is expressed as "of" or 's;in french it is "de" ;in russian it is ot or "c" and the list continues. when i looked at the grammar of korean and chinese I could find paralles with farsi grammar.Amir  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.86.153.167 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most common grammar element