Talk:English grammar

message: According to WP:SPLITTING, an article of more than 100 KB "Almost certainly should be divided." This article is slightly more than 120 KB. Other users have also recommended splitting, above.
Perhaps new articles called English nominals (grammar), English verbs (grammar), English word order, English interrogative sentences, English negation (grammar), and English comparatives (grammar) should be created and linked to, with very brief summaries included on this page. Those seem to be the longest sections. 
Alternately, the article could be split into English phrasal syntax and English clausal syntax. The resulting articles would probably still be quite long, though. Cnilep (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cnilep's suggested articles

message: ::I'd suggest starting with an outline of the subject first: this way, forks, mergers, and splits could all be handled under a single project.  This way, we could have head articles that deal with the subject in elementary ways useful to students and second language learners, and have more detailed linguistic topics under subheadings or in separate articles.  Just brainstorming on topics that ought to be covered here  ---
# English grammar
## English lexicon
### English noun
#### English plural
#### English adjective
#### English noun phrase
#### English compound noun
#### English pronoun
### English verb
#### English verb phrase
#### English preverb
#### Tense in English
#### Mood in English
#### Aspect in English
#### English auxiliary verb
#### English copula
### English particle
#### English adverb
#### English preposition
#### English interjection
#### English deictic particle
## English syntax
### Subjects in English
### Predication in English
### Well formed sentences in English
### English transformational grammar
This is just off the top of my head.  This way, we can keep the main articles relatively reader-friendly, while having subheadings or sub-articles to discuss more comparative and technical material.  I'd also hasten to point out that there's a lot of material that belongs under English grammar in such articles as negation (grammar) or subjunctive mood. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Smerdis of Tlon's suggested outline of new articles

message: ::Thanks, that's great. To you list, I'm adding the pages that already exist, so that they can be integrated.  First, there is the
:#:Category:English grammar (it has 64 pages).  There are a few more pages that are not included in the category:
:#English contraction (grammar)
:#English compound
:#The subjunctive in English (you've already mentioned)
:#Subordinate clause (English, although title doesn't say.)
:#Participles in Modern English
:#Gerunds in English
:#Adverbial clause (English, although title doesn't say.)
:#Auxiliary verb (90% about English).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fowler&Fowler's list of articles to be integrated into Smerdis' outline

message: Two of my young reporters say that they should be able to use the word "referencing" as a verb, i.e. "This is the new reality, said Perkins, referencing a new report on the English language." They say it's now part of the modern lexicon and I'm being old-fashioned by wanting to stick to "This is the new reality, said Perkins, referring to a new report."
Any opinions?
Many thanks, Martha
69.159.224.121 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Martha, "reference," of course, can be a verb (in the sense of "source," as used in Wikipedia, i.e. "Can you reference the passage?") but I'm assuming you mean in the sense of "refer?" The OED gives that as an archaic form!  I have no idea whether it is coming back or not.  It is at least not there in the dictionaries.  I checked the Complete OED and Webster's unabridged ... They're probably the the wrong ones though for new usage.  Hold on, let me check the Concise OED, which is usually more in tune with new trends ... Nope they don't have it either. You might consider posting at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language.  Good luck!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Apparently some people (50 in this instance) are using it in place of "refer to!"  Please see "referencing President Obama"!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please see What We Talk About When We Talk About Art.  In my view, this is still a solecism,  and you shouldn't let your cub reporters get away with it.  The usage seems to have found little favor among scholars.  A search in Google scholar brought up only scientific/technical articles or law reviews (neither group known for language acumen).  Not a single English Lit person was using it, nor any historians for that matter.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing as a verb 

message: I agree this article should be split into multiple articles.
In general, the articles that are most helpful to me as a user, are those that quickly lay out the basics of a topic, and then branch out or build up to the deep complexities. THis article dives into very heavy material on the first screen, and I (personally) found its style to be tedious and not very readable. I speculate that this is the product of many, many experts adding and editing details, piecemeal, over time. In its present state, I find it to be very rich in content and detail, which is a good thing, but its highly fragmented and is not comfortably readable. I confess I didnt read very far, I wasnt getting what I looked for from the article. 
When a user comes to an article for the first time, and is trying to digest the core concepts, it is highly distracting to encounter in the first few paragraphs, links to all the exceptions and side-topics. The reader has to mentally subtract all that extra chatter to find the core concepts. Its as if everyone is trying to get in their say, in one sentence. While there's a lot to be said for the Wiki concept of anyone being able to edit, there also comes a time when things have to be de-fragged or compressed, for the sake of maintaining readability for the average Joe.  
What the article needs now is some quality time with a good editor to examine it as a whole, to rewrite all this content into a more readable set of articles, without losing any of the valuable contributions users have made so far. The topic of "English Grammar" is far too vast to be covered in one article, and too important to be left in this condition. I cannot do the job, my talent is in physical sciences, not languages. I hope one of Wikipedia's wonderful editors can dedicate some time to this one. Solviva (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  From simple to complex 

message: E.g. Is this mine?  *No, it's its
Doesn't sound right to me.  Can anyone supply an example of this from usage or literature? Surely there is no nominal genitive for the third person neuter. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That form is confirmed to exist. Check COCA. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: what's COCA? Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  THE CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH. Just look up "it 's its". ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 06:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks!  Maybe I'm not searching correctly, but all the hits I get for "it 's its" use its as a determiner.  E.g. the first hit is Texas is so big. It's a republic; it 's its own country.  This is a determiner usage, not what is described in this article as a "nominal genitive".  Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for which it sounds bizzare is that we usually only use it when describing an inanimate objects or persons of unknown gender, in opposition to the incorrect singular they or he. I.e. What is it? It's a ball. And inanimate objects rarely possess things. But think, maybe about a fish tank with a frog in murky water What's that? It's its head!. --Île_flottante~Floating island  Talk 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Its" as a nominal genitive??

message: There appear to be no arguments against. In fact the multiplication of articles already has begun. What do you say we get going on this? I recommend using the outline above. Why don't some of you take some of these red titles? The whole thing of course can be tied together by various sorts of cross-references, which you skilled editors know already. It's too big for one editor, so feel free to pitch right in. If you should go wrong, there is plenty of assistance here to straighten you out.Dave (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a week now since the last post above.  I have selected a table-of-contents structure for the article.  It is based on the book 
* 
I believe that Carter and McCarthy is the  most accessible of the modern grammars; it is also the most recent.  I will write the first draft of the overview based on this book.  At that time, the details in the current text will be moved to sub/parent articles.  However, no information will be lost.  Many people have already done the hard work of creating many examples and definitions.  Think of the overview as initially just a place holder.  It may have new examples, but the old ones already in place will gradually be blended in.  Similarly, the overview may have terms that are different from those in the current text; those too will be disambiguated in the second round of revisions.  In addition, I'll be integrating information from the three books we've discussed above in the later revisions.  These books are: 
*
*
*
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I was going to start the revision today, but I've had a minor family emergency.  I will now start the revision on Wednesday December 2.  Thanks for your patience.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to working on the page

message: Hi, I'm back.  I will start the revision shortly.  Instead of splitting the current page into different subpages and worrying about content forks, I will be (temporarily) moving the current page to the talk page subpage: Talk:English grammar/English grammar old.  I will be following the section structure I've described above.  Thanks.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Update) I've completed the first draft of the first half, "Word classes," up to conjunctions.  Since it was written fast, I will spend the next few days tidying up.  Then, sometime early next week, I'll do the second half "Clausal structure" etc.  Once that is done and the first round of tidying up over, I'll start worrying about the subarticles, the old text and all the things that are needed to turn this into a GA class article.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I got waylaid again by some contingencies.  I will now do the Sentence and Clause section this coming weekend. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting revision

message: Is it correct to say " Advanced Equipments and Maintenance Company"? or it should be "Advanced Equipment and Maintenance Company"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.82.18.178 (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  plural of equipment 

message: The section on regular and irregular verbs ignores the history of English. English has Germanic strong and weak verbs in addition to irregular verbs. The internal vowel changes of strong verbs are somewhat regular and a class of their own. Perhaps the article could reflect the reality of English instead of over-simplifying it based on ignorance of Germanic verbs?LaRoza (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of what's an irregular verb and what's a minority paradigm is subjective. One could debate whether English has enough strong verbs to classify them as minority paradigms (where a minority paradigm would be considered regular, just as there are regular -er and -ir verbs in Spanish). It makes sense when teaching Old English to divide them into classes. But many have become regular, and some of the remaining strong verbs break apart into even smaller groups in Modern English, e.g. drink drank drunk and bind bound bound were the same class drincan dranc druncen and bindan band bunden but vowel changes and the loss of the preterite forms leave bind, find, grind and wind as the only verbs in the i/ou paradigm - so are they regular verbs of a very, very small minority paradigm, or just irregular verbs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.134.229 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular and Irregular Verbs 

message: Maybe determiners or prepositions would make a better example of a closed class. But I changed it to refer to Spivak pronouns rather than singular "they", as singular "they" makes a very, very poor example of how pronouns are a closed class. "They" is already a pronoun, so singular "they" wouldn't be an example of a new pronoun being incorporated into the pronoun system, but of a pronoun changing in usage (that is, it's not very different from "you" expanding to take over the functions of "thou"). Furthermore, the article before I edited said that it hadn't achieved acceptance in its 40 years of existence, even though as you can see on the wiki page for singular "they" (and referenced in other articles), sing. "they" has a very long history. Spivak pronouns, on the other hand, as they demonstrate how neologisms can't be accepted as pronouns very easily - the cases of new 2nd person plural pronouns grew organically out of phrases that all incorporate "you" in them (y'all, yinz, you guys, etc.).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.134.229 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns as a closed class 

message: is it grammatical correct to use this phrase (the whole entire )world  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.188.168.11 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help 

message: An edit of mine has been challenged on the grounds that the English language - contained in the edit - is inadequate and in large parts even incomprehensible plus some further not very positive predications . If you have time to spend, please have a look over at the talk-page Talk:Migration_Period#Critical comments to the intro, and here -> Draft for intro and chronology section . Sechinsic (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OT - [[Migration Period]] 

message: Where is the emphatic mood? 128.146.32.245 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphatic mood 

message: The page has no reference to euphemism, meiosis, litotes, etc. That is entirely right for a main "English Grammar" page.  Wikipedia has articles on those three topics, and presumably on other terms.
But there is nothing obvious in the page even linking to such things.
The page should have a link to a page which lists English grammatical terms,
with one-line descriptions (HTML DL/DD ?) and that page should link to the pages for those terms.
82.163.24.100 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical terms - link to page needed 

message: Shouldn't we also include the Conditional Mood and maybe note that Interrogative Mood exists?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.79.130 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions 

message: What is Noun of Proudly,extremely,sadly,fairly,vigorously  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.120.189 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noun 

message: I suggest that a chart like one found here here could be inserted to show the various combinations of progressive aspect, modal verb, etc., instead of mentioning individual combinations in each section. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done this. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The table looks identical to the source you suggested, and I don't see a copyright release in the source.  Is copying the chart fair use, or is it a copyright violation? I suggest you ask someone at the copyright help desk (or wherever) if you're not sure. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb section 

message: I think the section at the beginning about closed classes needs some help. For one thing it says that their has not gained "complete acceptance" after "more than 40 years of use." A couple of things with this: First of all, it implies that complete acceptance of a new word is requisite for that class to be called open as opposed to the statement earlier in the same section that closed classes "seldom" admit new words. Secondly, "more than 40 years" implies that they has been used for only somewhat longer than exactly 40 years, yet the article on singular they gives examples dating back 100s of years. I'm not disputing that prepositions are a closed class if such things as closed and open classes really exist, but the example given is very poor. Also, when it says it has not been accepted, who or what exactly is doing the accepting? It would be nice if actual quotations from Carter and McCarthy could be provided so that some context could be provided and those without access to the book can make judgments about whether it really supports the assertions being made in the article.
I'd also like to say that I personally would be much more inclined to accept use of singular they than I would the word celebutante. Surely there are better examples of new nouns that have become commonplace and accepted... How bout x-ray? Theshibboleth (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepositions as closed class 

message: Right now a very large number of examples of English grammar in this article are drawn from English literature. This approach shows that the authors of the article are very well-read, but the examples are needlessly long and complicated, and as such they make it difficult for the reader to find the relevant part of the example — the part that is actually intended to illustrate the grammatical point. 
I suggest that we (or I) go through the article and purge it of all the examples that meet the above description, and replace them with examples that are short and to the point (even though not drawn from literature).  Comments, anyone? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be a good idea. It would have the side effect of cutting down the references section. Some quotations could be kept if Wikipedia editors don't have good enough imaginations to come up with interesting examples, and to add flavour. I agree that some of the quotations are  obscure in meaning - "To dry the old oak's sap, and cherish springs". Another advantage would be that this would make it easier to show variations (such as active and passive voice) without misquoting. Count Truthstein (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples from literature

message: hi i just want to ask a question about pronunciation as i've been studying this language for a while and i am still looking for the answer to my question, is there a rule or anything like it that i can follow when it comes to pronounce letters  they are pronouced differently according to where in the word they are located?????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.132.60.254 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: In the phrase "Florence is nice when it's not too crowded, which it won't be if you come off season," "which" appears to be referring to the adjective "crowded." How is this catered for in the rules of English grammar?
220.136.82.13 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Which" referring to non-nouns 

message: This article is an absolute embarrassment.  Not only is the vast majority of information entirely incorrect, but it doesn't even come close to matching up with coordinating articles on the individual topics and concepts discussed herein.  Also, far too many people without competent knowledge of English grammar are editing this page while at the same time the works of individual authors are being cited as trusted references regardless of whether the views they purport are in line with accepted linguistic consensus.  I've just scanned through the section on mood and there was so little in that section that was correct that the only thing I could justify leaving was the initial sentence and only that after rewording it.
If this article cannot be brought up to snuff, it should be removed and links to the appropriate coordinating pages be put in its place.Drew.ward (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Rewrite Needed 

message: I propose that English syntax, which currently redirects to English grammar, should cover the material in English grammar#Clause syntax and English verbs#Syntax, which both cover the same material.
English grammar would have very brief remarks about English  syntax and link to the main article. It would also continue to list the lexical categories of English and other categories of constituents (such as noun phrases and prepositional phrases), as well as discussing structures of sentences above the level of clause (independent and dependent clauses).
English verbs would focus on verbs as a lexical category, rather than describing the complex interactions of auxiliary and non-auxiliary verbs. It would continue to reference possible uses of forms of verb lexemes, but for a systematic description the reader would be directed to other articles. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Ultimately I don't think there should be very much detail in the English Grammar article, it's too big a subject, we should aim to move all the detail to separate pages and keep just a summary and the main points here. Victor Yus (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The new article is at English clause syntax. It still needs tidying up a bit. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on syntax 

message: @Victor Yus, could you provide some references for the sections referring to "There" as a component of "There+BE" as a pronoun?  Just as "it" in the similar "It+BE" construction is not acting as a pronoun, I don't think that "there" within the "there+BE" construction can be analyzed separately from the construction as a whole.  There are similar equivalents in many other languages including "hay" (there is/are) in Spanish and "Es+GEBEN" (it gives) in German that perform the identical function and for which it's also not possible to divide off the components even though they can be used for other things otherwise in the language.  "There" in "there are many reasons" doesn't represent or refer back to some missing noun (a requisite of a pronoun).  Thus, unless considerably consensus can be found among grammarians and linguists of English, it seems that the section on there as a pronoun should be deleted.  
My second concern is with calling "which" an interrogative pronoun.  Which is an interrogative adjective (which you do point out), but even when used alone, always is used as an adjective modifying either an explicit or contextual noun.  Consider even the example from your revision: "The word which is used to ask about alternatives from what is seen as a closed set: which (of the books) do you like best? (It can also be an interrogative determiner: which book?; this can form the alternative pronominal expressions which one and which ones.)"  Even in your example you have included missing contextual information "(of the books".  "Which" is the universal interrogative yet requires something to modify.  In fact, every other interrogative is nothing but a shorthand representation of a longer "which form": who = which person; what = which thing; where = which place; when = at which time; how = in which manner; why = for which reason; etc.  But, just as when it is used as an interrogative (adjective), when seemingly appearing as a pronoun, it in fact not a pronoun, nor is it even occupying the pronoun position, but is instead, as usual, acting as an interrogative adjective modifying an (assumed understood) pronoun, noun, etc.  
Again, perhaps there is consensus among the majority of grammarians and linguists to go ahead and refer to "there" and "which" as pronouns, but unless you ignore the linguistics of English, it seems to me a mistaken analysis.  Cheers on working so hard on this article all this time.Drew.ward (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check what some grammar books, but certainly as to which, I don't think there's really any doubt (all the dictionaries I have to hand give it as a pronoun). When it modifies an explicit noun it's a determiner, when it doesn't it's a pronoun (just like this and that and his and all and various others). (Some linguists regard a pronoun as simply a determiner with the noun deleted - I think that's reported at the determiner or the pronoun article.) As to there there is certainly more doubt, and yesterday I added a mention of that doubt (dictionaries and linguists seem to differ as to their interpretations), but it seems to me more than just tenable that there is acting as a dummy pronoun (expletive pronoun, whatever you call it) - not referring to anything as such, but playing the syntactic role of a pronoun (and we tend to place words in word classes primarily according to the syntactic role they play). In all constructions like "Are there...?" and "..., isn't there?" and "For there to exist...", there is behaving exactly like a pronoun (or noun) and not like anything else. As long as we mention the fact that other analyses exist, I don't see reason to dispute the inclusion of this section in this article, though another alternative would be to split it off into a separate article (called Constructions with there or something like that) and just summarize and link to it here. Victor Yus (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes to Pronouns 

message: Is this really good English? It doesn't sound it to me. 81.159.106.160 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is correct. Strange, but correct, as in John's sister.--Technopat (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strike this out if I found it as an editor, and use "of" rather than " 's". Basic. Tony (talk)  09:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''the man you saw yesterday's sister'' 

message: ... with the G capped?
It's a pretty silly section, in my view. Tony (talk)  09:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems too long, at least. There is an article, Gender in English, where such information could be placed if any of it is of value. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Noun Gender" 

message: "There are historical, social, cultural and regional variations of English. Divergences from the grammar described here occur in some dialects of English. This article describes a generalized present-day Standard English, the form of speech and writing found in types of public discourse including broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting, including both formal and informal speech. There are differences in grammar between the standard forms of British, American, and Australian English, although these are minor compared with the lexical and pronunciation differences."
This seems disorganised. Can I make it:
"This article describes a generalized present-day standard English—the form of speech and writing found in types of public discourse such as broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting, including both formal and informal registers. There are differences in grammar between the standard forms of British, American, and Australian English, although these are minor compared with the lexical and pronunciation differences."
Isn't it too detailed for the lead to list "historical, social, and cultural"? Are these followed up specifically in the article? Tony (talk)  09:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* English-English dictionaries and thesaurus books.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In my view it's confusing, often places undue emphasis on some aspects, and is not well-written throughout.
First offering of the day, at random: "English word order has moved from the Germanic verb-second (V2) word order to being almost exclusively subject–verb–object (SVO)."
Aside from the logic problem (SVO does seem to be "verb-second"), and the fact that English is a Germanic language, the "almost exclusively" claim is ridiculous, unless we give up asking questions or using passive voice, or availing ourselves of the relatively fluid options for word order in English. Tony (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope no one reads this article 

message: Why do some speakers prefer to say "I exercise" while other would rather say "I do exercise", as if the verb were "to do exercise" rather than simply "to exercise"?  I find the lattherh more typincal  of British English than the first one, especially when people list exercise along wihth eating a well-balance diet.--Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which brings up another two questions: a) why do people "go swimmming" but "do yoga", for example? and b) why use "hihking" to say "walking"? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: A 2A03:2880:FF:9:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to ask questions about the subject of the article; it's just for discussing improvements to the article itself. But, since I'm already typing this, the distinction between concrete nouns (like shoe) and abstract nouns (like truth) is discussed here. Girth Summit (blether) 16:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is abstract noun 

message: The world are also noun Khan hafeez ullah khan hafeez (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noun shows feelings now