Talk:Inflection

message: A single morpheme usually carries information about person, number, tense, aspect and mood, and the verb paradigm may be quite complex.
It is not clear what this means. I tried it out on the first morpheme that came to mind: French parle. It didn't carry sufficient information about person. First or third? Do you mean that each and every verb morpheme carries all that information? Of course not, that is absurd. What then do you mean and if you cannot say what you mean why are you inflicting this gobbledeygook on us? Where is your reference for this? I was willing to accept the programmer-pseudo-linguisticese for Basque because a reference was included, and, I said to myself, if the gentle reader wants to know what it means he or she as the case may be can study the article and read Wikipedia on Basque, which would or should explain it. Basque speakers don't go around talking about two levels of recursion in their agglutination. I could see how language programmers might see it that way although you could argue their view is unbalanced (or they are unbalanced, whatever). But, this Romance material has no ref and makes no sense from anyone's point of view, so out with it.Dave (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was talking about inflectional morphemes whereas "parle" is a root. — 88.238.45.159 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The overworked Romance morpheme

message: Why "may" the introduction "be too long" and what or how should it be trimmed? Hyacinth (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction doesn't clarify, to me, what inflection is, and is too verbose. It also uses the term in the definition too frequently. Cheers! (Eidlyn (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction to long?

message: Old Irish is an extremely highly inflected ancient Indo-European language, yet the article not only lacks a section on it (or any of the other Celtic languages for that matter), but doesn't even mention it or any of its modern, living decedents (Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic and Manx), all of which are inflected (albeit to a lesser degree than Old Irish). This is a serious gap in the Indo-European side of the picture described here. Could someone remedy this? I don't have the expertise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.117 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Is Old Irish not mentioned at all? 

message: I see this has been discussed before (up the page), but I'm still inclined to share the doubts expressed there. Is gato/gata really inflectional rather than derivational? Are they really the same lexeme? Isn't it like "waiter/waitress" or "drake/duck"? Victor Yus (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised to learn there is controversy about this – there's controversy surrounding many things in linguistics, and derivation vs. inflection is often subtle – but gender agreement, at least, is usually treated as inflection. Cnilep (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this the image I added to the page 27 September, but now I'm not confident whether it's better. What say you? Cnilep (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Gato/gata

message: The second paragraph in this section is a long list, was this meant to be a chart or table of some kind?
It would also be helpful if the eight English inflectional suffixes were listed, but these may be better listed in the Examples in English section, rather than the Inflection vs. derivation section. Sschuler (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same list and fixed the formatting Danielklein (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflection vs. derivation

message: Is the Old English word "ēage" really "ēage" in the singular accusative? This looks like a mistake because "nama" becomes "naman" and "tunge" becomes "tungan". If the weak neuter form is different from the weak masculine and feminine forms, would someone add a brief explanation, otherwise if it's a mistake just fix it? Danielklein (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old English weak nouns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inflection. 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/20050930084123/http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/A/A92/A92-1016.pdf to http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/A/A92/A92-1016.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) 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this article has a lot of necessary information, but also some that may deter readers wanting to lear about Inflection because of its length. The intro seems to go on some areas of morphemes that could be simplified to bring more clarity. It would seem helpful to consider pulling some of those long sentences In the intro, and replace them with citations for those who want a more detailed version. This can make it easier to hit all of the topics that are in the article throughout the intro. Bayjanae (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The image near the top of the article blends into dark backgrounds. In my case, the Wikipedia Android app using dark mode. I assume this is because the PNG has a transparent background.
I'm not sure if there's a wider WikiProject or something similar that addresses these issues, but I personally don't see any issue with adding a white background to the PNG. I assume that the light mode in official Wikipedia "platforms" (web, mobile apps, others?) uses pure white as a background, so they shouldn't notice a difference.
I'm not familiar with Commons, but I imagine that this would have to be uploaded as a separate file unless it was done by the original uploader? I mean, the image is released under CC0 but I don't know what the Commons policies are regarding modifications. The file is used on a handful of other Wikipedias, but I imagine they would benefit the same from this modification to the image. Firvqipo (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dà chù.png unreadable on dark background