![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
Looks like a nice rewrite in content, needs a little cleaning up. kwami (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree that "let's" (from "let us") has ever been changed to "lets" (whether in "lets you and me fight" or otherwise); since apostrophes aren't spoken, it is merely the result of homophone confusion with the present-tense third-person singular form of to let. Comments? (Searching through the history, I tracked down the introduction of the sentence in question to the original rewrite back in January.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I doubt that this is a well-known, or even a good example. It may be an example of future grammaticalization, but WP:CRYSTAL. As of now, "lets you and me fight" is just broken English. If the phrase is used at all, it is used humorously, because it is broken English. If you wait for another century or so, perhaps it will become grammaticalized in standard 22nd century English. --dab (𒁳) 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
In the 'Counterexamples' section, 'else' (somebody else's) is an adjective. Another possible formation involves apposition: 'my brother-in-law John's car', but I think there is a limit to the length of the string here: 'my brother-in-law and Everton goalkeeper John's car' would, I am sure, be rejected by most native English speakers and prove too difficult to form for most non-native speakers.Pamour (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Grammaticalization at Brazil From 90 years, studies on grammaticalization became incorporated in the Brazilian universities. Two exponents of Brazilian southeastern are: Maria Luiza Braga, in Rio de Janeiro, and Teixeira Ataliba Castilho, in São Paulo. Both graduate young researchers, who became active in this line of research. In all parts of Brazil, studies advanced and today, the interaction between grammar and cognition has become increasingly evident stronger even involving interdisciplinary work between psychology and linguistics. Related works: Gonçalves, Carlos Sebastian et al. Introduction to grammaticalization, Publisher: Parabola, 2007. Lima-Hernandes, Maria Célia. Interface Sociolinguistics grammaticalization, Publisher: Edusp, 2011.
I'm just a layman who stumbled on this article. Can we get a little less academic-linguist and have some common examples? It would greatly reduce the impedence mismatch.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorVariola (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I started this article back in 2005 with English (UK) spelling, and it continued as such for quite some time --- past stub status --- MOS:RETAIN states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." - Francis Tyers · 10:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
This section is factually incorrect.
Grammatical word: Middle English and Modern English will, e.g. "I will go to the market"; auxiliary expressing intention, lacking many features of English verbs such as an inflected past tense (it is ungrammatical to say, e.g. *I willed go to the market).
In fact, in an earlier stage of Modern English it was quite grammatical to use the past tense, which is 'would'. For instance, an example that is still understandable (although archaic) in the modern language:
He would a sailor be.
Even "I would go to the market" (I wanted to go to the market) was probably acceptable in earlier stages of Modern English.
This section needs to be rewritten to remove this incorrect information.
114.254.134.81 (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
The second sentence of the lead needs to be rewritten. Currently it is
First, "creates new function words within language, by separating functions from their original inflectional and bound constructions" is unclear since inflectional and bound constructions are the ultimate outcome of the process rather than what is "original".
And second, "by separating functions from their original inflectional and bound constructions (i.e. from content words)" seems nonsensical since it equates content words with inflectional and bound constructions.
How about this replacement sentence?:
"Thoughts on grammaticalization" is available as an Open Access version from http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/88 . The list of references could be updated to include this link. This is the third edition, with new publisher, ISBN and year. I do not edited directly since I have a conflict of interest Jasy jatere (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
What's the opposite procedure to Grammaticalization? Zzzwik (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply