Talk:Null-subject language

message: To be precise, Russian verbs do not have person marked in the past (which btw results in less frequent pronoun drops in the past then in other forms); but they have gender in singular. We  just know that the Latin original phrase is first-person, but without this background пришёл, увидел, победил is 'I-m./you-m./he came,' etc. Ignatus (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian example 

message: There seems to be quite a lot of this in English, at least in the first person singular, perhaps mainly in slightly informal contexts, like "Don't know much about history, don't know much about biology"; "Will you come to-morrow?" "Can't, I'm afraid"; "Can't pay, won't pay," and so on. Seadowns (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: English

message: The article states:
:Japanese and several other null subject languages are topic-prominent languages: they require an expressed topic in order for sentences to make sense.
Although Japanese is topic-prominent, sentences definitely don't require an expressed topic to make sense. For one, the topic is always omitted when it is the same as the subject, and in other situations the topic, subject, and object can be, and frequently are omitted entirely, whenever they are expected to be implicitly understood. I will try to reword this section. LeeWilson (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese requiring an expressed topic

message: this article should also include stuff about chomsky and "pro-drop parameter" and "parameter settings in the brain" Bogdan | Talk 19:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. - FrancisTyers 17:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-drop parameter, parameter settings in the brain

message: I think there's considerable overlap (and confusion) between "null subject" and "pro-drop". Modesty aside, I think the coverage of the subject in pro-drop language is fine, though of course this is not exactly the same phenomenon. I'd prefer to see these articles merged into one. In any case, I'm putting this up for attention. --Pablo D. Flores 14:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but I do think a language can be one but not the other. Esperanto, for example, is non-pro-drop, but it seems that it is null-subject, since impersonal sentences do not require a subject. Conversely, it seems that a language that allowed some pronouns to be dropped, but never subject pronouns, would be pro-drop, but non-null-subject. I think the articles should simply do a better job explaining the difference. Alternatively, perhaps it should be explained that "null subject" and "pro-drop" are two different ways of looking at what is usually the same phenomenon: while the latter sees pronouns being dropped, the former doesn't see pronouns having been there to begin with. Also, perhaps it is better to say that one language can be more null-subject or pro-drop than another, rather than to attempt to categorize languages as either null-subject or not. Ruakh 05:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Pro-drop is defined as the possibility (or the idiomatic obligation) of leaving out pronouns when pragmatically inferable. That's something completely different from the null-subject definition, which doesn't mention pragmatics at all but just syntax; and this article also mixes 1) null-subject as an example of pro-drop, and 2) null-subject as the alternative to dummy pronoun usage with semantically impersonal verbs. Then we had a lengthy discussion months ago about those, and settled on a NPOV compromise... but I still think it in it's raining is truly meaningless and an artifact of syntax. I suggest everybody (including myself) gets well into the subject and then we can discuss, so that we don't have neither overlap nor contradiction among articles. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-drop languages

message: I'm a Slovenian, and based on my understanding of null subject languages, Slovenian is one too.
Example:
I am eating.
Jem.
You are eating.
Ješ.
The verb agrees with subject in person and number, and if the subject is omitted, the verb itself signifies who is the object (in a given contex).
Compare:
Jaz jem. would mean It is me who is eating. or Moi, je mange. (in French).
* Most, if not all, Slavic languages are like this (Russian, for example), and I see no reason for them not to be on the list, as it's a very prominent feature of those languages. Your examples in Russian: I am eating = (Я) ем, You are eating = (Ты) ешь. Another example: - Где Аня? - Ушла = - Where's Anna? - (She) went out. 84.202.199.101 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see any difference between Russian and Latin in this respect. The subject is in the verb form.( Also, I think someone has written object above when meaning subject.)Seadowns (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovenian language 

message: It is evident that we don't need both articles. Does anyone see any problems or other issues in merging these two? --LambiamTalk 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, sounds good to me. Ruakh 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They clearly refer to the same thing and this is better named, so merge away!  —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from [[Null subjects]] 

message: I don't know whether Irish should be considered a null subject language or not. In Irish, some finite verb forms are inflected for person and number (synthetic forms), while others aren't and have to have an explicit subject (analytic forms). Using explicit subjects with synthetic forms is ungrammatical. So for example, the 1st person singular present indicative is synthetic: molaim means "I praise", and *molaim mé is ungrammatical (Irish being VSO the verb precedes the subject). But the 3rd person singular present indicative is analytic: molann sé means "he praises" and *molann without an explicit subject is ungrammatical (except in tag questions and as an answer to a question). So what's weird about Irish compared to "canonical" null-subject languages like Portuguese is (1) not all finite verb forms carry person and number information, and those that don't may not have a null subject, and (2) verb forms that do carry person and number information must have a null subject; it isn't optional. —Angr 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that given what you just said, Irish is a null subject language, but that what you just said bears explanation in the article. Ruakh 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll see if I can dig up some sources. —Angr 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, in light of the discussion below, I won't bother. —Angr 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish? 

message: Why shouldn't we mention that imperative sentences often come without subject?! Velho 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should; it's just that that wasn't the place for it. I've now added that information in a section where it's more relevant (Null subject language#Null subjects in non-null subject languages). —RuakhTALK 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the difference between independent clauses and dependent clauses has nothing to do with anything. —Angr 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't imperative sentences independent clauses?! 

message: I am Brazilian and thus a native speaker of Portuguese. I would like to point out that according to Portuguese grammar, the second example (with "It is raining") is not exactly a case of omitted subject, and therefore may not be a case of null subject as defined here. Additionally, there is a good and precise reason why the subject may be omitted in the first example (with "I am going home").
In the first example, "Vou para casa" ("I am going home" - or, literally, "[I] go to [my] house" - there are actually two omitted pronouns in this sentence, one personal and one possessive!), it is simply the very detailed and precise Portuguese verb conjugation, mostly with a different verb form for each person, number and tense combination, that makes the pronoun implicit and redundant.
In other words, there is no way a pronoun other than eu ("I") could be used with vou; so, there is no gain in information content by using the pronoun explicitly (or loss by not using it). Both forms are grammatically correct and it is usually left to the speaker's or writer's preference to use either of them. However, as mentioned in the text, Brazilian Portuguese is indeed more liberal with using explicit pronouns or not than European Portuguese, where emphasis considerations weigh more (here in Brazil, we not only use the pronoun for emphasis, but must use the right voice tone when emphasis is desired - that is, the emphasis itself must be emphasized!). For this very reason, we are taught in school that it is considered more elegant to avoid using explicit subjects whenever possible, especially with eu, because saying "eu, eu, eu" all the time can be interpreted as a sign that the person is a total egocentric...
On the other hand, there are some verbs and tenses where the first and third person singular are conjugated the same way. The same very irregular verb ir ("to go") offers an example in the so-called imperfect past tense: "Eu ia à igreja" ("I used to go to church") and "Ele/ela ia à igreja" ("He/she used to go to church"). In such cases, the speaker or writer is advised to check if there are enough context clues before deciding whether to use an explicit subject or not, because otherwise there may be room for ambiguity sometimes.
However, chover ("to rain") is a completely different case. It is not a case where the subject may be omitted because it is already implicit: chover and other "weather" verbs are a special case of so-called "impersonal defective" verbs, and in their commonest usage (as in "It is raining" - "Está chovendo" in Brazil or "Está a chover" in Portugal), they are only conjugated in the third person singular and syntactically are considered to have no subject at all. That is, the subject is not being omitted - Portuguese grammar considers that it simply does not exist! (There are, however, figurative constructions which may have a subject, and then the verb will be conjugated accordingly; the prestigious Houaiss dictionary gives some examples, such as: "Após o apelo na TV, os donativos choveram." - "After the appeal on TV, donations rained.") With that in mind, is the basic sense of chover a null-subject example as defined by this article? I am not so sure.
I am not very proficient in Spanish, but the two languages are very similar, including much of their grammar, and I believe these same remarks probably apply to Spanish as well (including the case of llover - "to rain").
What do you think?
--UrsoBR (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Very different situations for the current Portuguese examples

message: There is something I want to clarify before I write sections on Hebrew and Arabic. In null subject languages, is it necessary or just optional to omit the subject? I need to know this to finish my section on Hebrew.
--Vgp0012 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just optional; Hebrew is indeed a null subject language (especially in the past tense). However, please think about whether these sections are really helpful, and if you do write them, please keep them brief; the last thing we need is for this article to mushroom in discussing the minutiae of fifty million languages. Indeed, we already have an "Auxiliary languages" section that's really just pointless and needs to be either eliminated, or shortened to just a sentence or two. —RuakhTALK 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think it would be difficult for any one editor to decide unilaterally which languages should be included in an article. One option would be to have a Specific languages section, with subsections Hebrew, Arabic, and Auxiliary languages. This way, the Auxiliary languages section would be less obtrusive. I've seen this approach used in many linguistic Wikipedia articles. It seems to work well, and I find the diversity of information very helpful. Cal (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semitic Languages 

message: We need a List of null-subject languages as well as a List of non-null-subject languages.  Openodd (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: I'm removing the parenthetical addition from 94.225.100.28 on 30 September, 2011‎
:(The above is a rather ambiguous example. In Latin the subject is not necessarily stated through a (personal) noun, but implied through conjugation. Therefore, the subject is present indeed: the first person singular is stated through the “i” in “ven-i“, “vid-i”, “vic-i”, and through the “o” in “cogit-o”. “To think, therefore to be” would be the literal translation of “Cogitare ergo esse“; “I think, therefore I am” is the truly literal translation of “Cogito ergo sum”. The stated examples are hence not a case of null-subject.)
Since the rest of the article considers verb conjugation to be perfectly compatible with classifying an example as Null-subject, even typical. 94.225.100.28's interpretation makes sense, but doesn't fit with the rest of the article.
Aidan (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, Latin is an example.  The problem is that the so-called "literal translations" (literal !) there now give the false impression that in fact subject person is unexpressed in the Latin, e.g. that veni could be just as well "you came" as "I came", when actually it's perfectly well expressed, just inflectionally rather than via an explicit pronoun subject.  Needs fixed. 4pq1injbok (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the problem with the Latin is. The article says right there in the second paragraph, "null-subject languages express person, number, and/or gender agreement with the referent on the verb, rendering a subject noun phrase redundant." This is exactly what's happening in the Latin examples: "veni" is conjugated in first person, so it does literally mean "I came", but the pronoun "I" ("ego") is not explicitly used in the sentence. If anything, the literal translations could put the subject in brackets to make it clear that what information is conveyed through the verb conjugation. But aside from that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with these examples. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the problem is with including Latin as an example, but rather that after 'veni, vidi, vici' it gives a "literal" translation as 'came, saw, conquered' and then an "idiomatic" translation that reads 'I came, etc.' The problem is that 'came, saw, conquered' would not be considered a "literal" translation by any Latin scholar or teacher. I am a Latin teacher and I would expect the pronoun expressed in an English rendering since it's clearly expressed in the Latin. The "literal" translation implies that Latin doesn't mark person and number on verbs, which is of course false. Now that I look at the other examples it looks like this problem pervades the article. Someone is trying to "recreate" the effect of such languages (I call them pro-drop) in English. The problem is that you can't create the effect in English, which is one of the points of the article, i.e. English is not a null-subject language! 'came, saw, conquered' does not create the effect that a Latin speaker would feel upon hearing 'veni, vidi, vici', in fact 'I came, I saw, I conquered' is as close as one can get to create the effect of this phrase in English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing parenthetical from Latin example 

message: I do not understand the concept of 'null subject' as explained here at all.
In a form such as 'tulissem' it is surely the final grapheme/morpheme that carries the 'subject' information and is every bit as explicit as 'ego', which is quite simply made redundant and need not be added but can be added in some cases for particular effect. In languages where the pronoun information is usually explicitly required, the omission of it (Weiss nicht/Don't know) is possible because the context ensures that it is understood (Pamour (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit subject 

message: Taken in account that the text is almost the same those sections could be together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.123.118.0 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalan, Spanish

message: What is an NP language? I've searched the Wikipedia and failed. I see a lot of examples about "NP-completeness" in mathematics and computation; they obviously are not relevant. The only linguistic example I find is NP as an abbreviation of "noun phrase" but I can't make sense of that either in this context. — Tonymec (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi 

message: In Turkish it is not actually possible to omit the subject. Because the language do extensively make use of possessive suffixes. So you will never ever have to "guess" the subject...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language#Turkish.
: "Geldi." Can you please tell me who arrived, without guessing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleman (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish