![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the article it says that "that" in English can never be used as a pronoun. This is patently not true. "That" is a demonstrative pronoun in English, and I assume the author meant to say that "that" can't be used as a personal pronoun in English, which is true. Someone please fix this.
What is a screeve? Do you mean mood? --195.82.213.193 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The term "screeve" was coined by american linguist Howard Aronson to render the georgian term "mck'rivi", roughly translatable as "row", introduced by the founder of georgian linguistics Ak'ak'i Shanidze to describe what Aronson himself calls "a unique combination of tense, mood and aspect" (i quote from memory). It is not the same as mood, then.Archimagister 10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this article needs a bit more in terms of linguistics, but unfortunately I don't know much about Georgian really. For example, I know that Georgian has an active alignment in some verb series (more precisely, a split-S system), and I suspect that the behaviour of the verbs cough and sneeze have to do with that (Georgian is ergative in places, yet marks some intransitive subjects as ergative, when the verb action is performed by the subject).
The explanation of cases is not very helpful, since almost all cases can be applied to almost any syntactic role... :-( Systematic examples with all the possible patterns would be better. --Pablo D. Flores 11:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does Georgian have an Antipassive voice? If so, could someone add Georgian examples to that article? --Jim Henry | Talk 20:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the phonetic transcription in this article should be made consistent. There are some uses, for example, of ç (instead of ch?), or ş (instead of sh?), or ġ (what is this?). I don't know any Georgian and am not competent to do the necessary editing, but I assume there are others out there who can. Richwales 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute! There's a well-estabilished scholarly standard for the translitteration of georgian, and I see no reason to invent new ones. I see it as much more sensible to follow the table given in Hewitt's reference grammar, for those who have access to it right now. That's the only way to ensure consistency —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archimagister (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or why not follow the Georgian national system of romanization? It seems intuitive to English readers and consistent with how Georgian names are usually transliterated. I agree that ad hoc systems ("I have left x intact as it was consistent") are not helpful at all. Whatever system is used, the mapping should be explained on Wikipedia, not just in some book.--87.162.35.44 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case section it says that only proper nouns (names) in Latin (and other languages) have a separate vocative. What is this statement based on? I'm fairly certain that any Latin masculine noun of the second declension ending in -us in the nominative will have a separate vocative in -e regardless of whether it is a name or not. I should like to see that claim backed up with sources or else removed from the article. Nothingbutmeat 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true, any noun or adjective can take the vocative in Latin. From Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar (the standard reference grammar of Latin) I quote §340b and c respectively: "The vocative of an adjective is sometimes used in poetry instead of the nominative, where the verb is in the second person:- quo moriture ruis (Aen. x. 811), whither art thou rushing to thy doom? censorem trabeate salutas (Pers. iii. 29), robed you salute the censor." "The vocative macte is used as a predicate in the phrase macte esto (virtute), success attend your (valor):- iuberem te macte virtute esse (Liv. ii. 12), I should bid you go on and prosper in your valor. macte nova virtute puer (Aen. ix. 641), success attend your valor, boy!..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.70.220 (talk) 06:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Georgian grammar. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current text contains:
”Verbs in Class 3 are usually intransitive verbs, but unlike Class 2 verbs, they mark their subject using the ergative case.”
Does that mean that Class 2 verbs usually have subjects in the nominative case? Shall we mention that in the paragraph about Class 2 verbs?Redav (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current article text contains:
”Second conjugation verbs behave as would normally be expected in an ergative language; the subject is declined in the least-marked case, the nominative case (terminologically equivalent in this instance to absolutive cases in other languages). Third conjugation verbs behave as if they belonged to an accusative system; the most-marked case (the ergative) marks the subject.”
Most (Wikipedia) texts on grammar seem to relate the nominative case to (nominative-)accusative systems and the ergative case to (absolutive-)ergative systems.
I wonder why in the quoted text a view is presented that seems to be the other way around.Redav (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]