Talk:Complementizer

Why a section on modern Hebrew complementizers?
What the hell is this babble about Israeli complementiser? That has nothing to do with the actual article itself, it's not relevant. I think it should be moved under something like "Hebrew grammar" or whatever.

With respect, I disagree. If section 2 develops subsections 2.1, 2.2 usw. for different languages, that's great. The history of Cs is part of the article on Cs. Now, if the section were indeed "babble", it would hardly be helpful to move it anywhere. We have other ways of dealing with nonsense. 203.97.123.30 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Section 2 has not developed subsections, and this section doesn't help a reader understand anything new about complementizers: it talks about the etymology of complementizers in one language. I feel too new here to remove it myself, but would encourage that section's removal. 72.14.228.140 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can add in some tree diagrams as examples? I think that would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.205.183 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that thee section on the complementizer in Modern Hebrew is totally out of place and needs to go. It belongs in the article Modern Hebrew grammar, not here. For those who disagree, imagine if the article on Insects had an entire section devoted to the anatomy of Eurema hecabe. --N-k (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I shortened it to give just the essentials for the interested reader. בוקי סריקי (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "complementizer"
The openeng sentences say that the term "complementizer" is


 * roughly equivalent to the term "subordinating conjunction" in traditional grammar. For example, the word "that" is generally called a complementizer in English sentences like "Mary believes that it is raining."

But the article reduced relative clause uses "complementizer" more broadly, to include relative pronouns. Should the definition here be broadened?

Also, in reduced relative clause Chinese relative clauses were removed as examples of reduced relative clauses on the grounds that the particle de (which is not a subordinating conjunction) is essentially a complementizer, again suggesting that the definition here should be broadened. If so, then the passage


 * Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese do not have complementizers at all.

should be replaced by


 * Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese do not have complementizers in sentences like "I think [that he will go to the store]", which do not include relative clauses. In relative clauses the nominalizer 的 de functions as a complementizer. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Relationship/difference between Complentizer and Relativizer
I would suggest that something be added explaining the relationship or differences between a complementizer and a relativizer. How does one distinguish between a relative clause and clause headed by a complementizer? — al-Shimoni  (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why mention Chinese complementizers?
In the "other languages" section, it mentions that Chinese does not have complementizers. That seems odd to me. If it doesn't have them, why is that mentioned in this article? Does it make sense to delete that bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkunimune (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Late answer, but I went ahead and removed it. It really didn't seem notable.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Itzaj Maya isn't obviously a relative clause from the description
I'm sorry, I don't understand this:

"Complementizers in Itzaj Maya also demonstrate epistemic meaning. For instance, English that and Itzaj Maya kej are used not only to identify complements, but also to introduce relative clauses:"

The example given is: (1) a.

Ma’ t-inw-ojel-t-aj [ke t-u-b’et-aj].

neg ?-1sg.a-know-tr-its comp compl-3a-do-cts

It is difficult to judge whether the Itzaj Maya is an example of a relative clause or not, but the English gloss, ‘I didn't know that he did it’, certainly is not.

Could this be clarified?

Bathrobe (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Glossing abbreviation is wrong
The glossing abbreviation for complementizers is COMP according to the Leipzig Glossing Rules. However, the syntax on wikipedia does not recognize this abbreviation as a complementizer and instead glosses it as comparative. The glossing thus needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjeckel (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)