Talk:Small clause

message: "We will be providing structural edits and adding new content to this page focused on SMALL CLAUSES. This is part of a course-based activity of a 3rd year syntax course, and we anticipate having completed our edits by the end of December. We would appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions about how to improve the overall quality of this article." Rachken Ammurr Rosabellec (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

message: How can we know that the French examples all involve a small clause? A couple of the examples have a relative clause that could perhaps be attached to the preceding noun. Consider, for instance, the following English sentences:
::a. I saw the professor who was smoking.
::b. I saw the professor who was smoking leave the room.
The relative clause who was smoking in (b) modifies the professor. How do we know that the same is not true in sentence (a)? In other words, how do we know that we are dealing with a small clause in (a)? --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The French examples still contain the same mistake. There are two examples with relative clauses, and it is not clear to me that the relative clause are part of small clauses. Typically, a relative clause modifies a noun in a straightforward manner. Please check with your professor about this. If the issue is not corrected, I inted to remove the examples.--Tjo3ya (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I again recommend checking with your professor about this. Most relative clauses are dependents of the preceding noun, so they would not be analyzed in terms of a small clause. There are exceptions, though, such as the analysis of the relative-like clauses in it-clefts. For me, the fact that you cannot distinguish (or are not sure about) the distinction between small clause and relative clause is problematic. --Tjo3ya (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: French examples

message: Yes, your suggested outline sounds good to me. Concerning interlinear glosses, the necessity to include them increases as one reaches to languages that are less known. Examples from languages related to English (German, French, etc.) may not need the strict glosses, whereas examples from less-widely known languages require strict glossing. I think the examples you are producing from Persian, Welsh, etc. need the strict glossing. The tables are good for those examples.  
Interlinear glosses in table format have been added!Laurasegriffin (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The bold script for marking small clauses is also good. The table used for the example is good. However, I think the non-English examples should be postponed until the section on small clauses in other languages. The examples produced should be English examples when conveying the main ideas about and disputes concerning small clauses. If data from another language is particularly relevant to some aspect of the debate, then it is appropriate to put it in. Otherwise, however, the content is more accessible if it remains with English examples. Keep in mind that this is English Wikipedia. French small clauses should be discussed in detail in the French Wikipedia page on small clauses, Persian small clauses should be discussed in detail in the Persian Wikipedia page on small clauses, etc. --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move the non-English examples into my sandbox for now and then replace them with English examples! For examples in other languages, does this outline sound all right for each subsection (e.g. French small clauses, Persian small clauses): 1. Different attested constructions (e.g. NP VP, NP AP), infinitival verb grammatical/ungrammatical. 2. Constituency tests: support or disprove constituency arguments. This would provide a guideline for new language data organisation. There could be more subsections (maybe to discuss if these examples dis/prove layered/flat structure?), but this would be the starting point.Laurasegriffin (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Plans for the article

message: I am planning to add content to a history section, and have uploaded the content into my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laurasegriffin/sandbox . Any and all comments are encouraged! After including any comments, I intend to upload this content on April 16, 2019. Laurasegriffin (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers! When citing examples, page numbers are needed. In fact, always provide page numbers if possible. The sentence John's evading his taxes infuriates me likely does not involve a small clause. Where did you find the example? Is it verbatim from a source? I see further difficulties in the section as well, but that's enough for the moment. --Tjo3ya (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: I have begun drafting sections for French examples and Lithuanian examples in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laurasegriffin/sandbox . I intend on uploading these examples on April 16, 2019. Any and all comments are welcome! Laurasegriffin (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficulties with accessibility here. The examples are referred to in the text with letters, but no letters are used to label the examples. Examples in the running text should be marked using italics, not quotation marks. I am losing confidence that anything positive is going to come of this. Only the tables used for examples are good.--Tjo3ya (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in Other Languages 

message: I have begun drafting an addition to the X-Bar Theory Structure section on my sandbox here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Csstudent300/sandbox
I Intend to upload this section when I am finished, sometime around April 18th, 2019.  Please bring any issues to my attention before then, thank you.
Csstudent300 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Bar Structures 

message: This developing article has numerous issues. I continue to be skeptical about the value of this project for content in Wikipedia in general. Please convey this comment to your professor, whose work I continue to do here. I've just skimmed the new content. Here are some problems and suggestions for improvement:
1. The numbering of examples should be consistent throughout the entire article. The convention employed should be consistent. I prefer the convention that enumerates the examples in order in each section, and then restarts for each new section.
2. The names of individual linguists should not generally appear in the main text. If it is necessary to mention them, their names can appear in the notes. It is appropriate to mention only the most prominent of linguists in the main text. See the debate on this issue going on for the article on non-configurational languages.
3. Brackets are still appearing in many places to mark small clauses. Please change to bold script, a more neutral way to mark the small clauses. 
4. I am against including the section on the X-bar analysis. It is too dense and technical and not understandable to the average Wikipedia reader. If such a section is necessary, it might appear in the article on X-bar theory.
If I spend more time, I will certainly find further problems. These points are enough for the time being, however. To end on a more positive note, I think the sections on coordination in other languages can in fact be a valuable contribution (assuming further improvement, though). --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions