Talk:Equative

Comments on entry
1. Classify the languages discussed relative to the contrast between equative predication versus nominal predication. Identify the ways in which they differ, i.e. semantically, syntactically, and morphologically. In particular, make sure to also discuss the small clause contexts, as these show that the copulas is required only in contexts that require tense-marking. In other words, in English, the copula is not conditioned by equative structures. One language to check is Thai.

2. In addition to the DP1 = DP2 contexts, also add section on DP = CP, and DP = [DP [CP ]]. See description on Wikipedia course page for details.

3. Also add a section on the formal analysis of equatives. See esp. references by Heycock, Ramchand, Adger.

4. In terms of organization, I suggest the following: §1 DP = DP; §2 DP = CP; § DP = [DP[CP…]]; §4 Theoretical debate--RM Dechaine (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Milestone #3 Group peer review by group B4
Use a clearer definition when explaining the term "equative" or "equated". How it is written now seems to assume prior knowledge by the reader, and these articles are to be written in such a way that it is possible for anyone (even without linguistic knowledge) to understand. KristenMcB (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Make sure to add examples for French and German if you have them - if not, the subheading needs to be deleted

The section "grammatical function" partially repeats the content in the introduction. I think it would be better to combine the two as the example is also somewhat repetitive. Also, "The major difference between languages is whether or not they use a copular verb or non-verbal element to equate the two expressions" hints to me that there should be a contrastive example of a non-copula usage. Stemming from this, the two major subheadings copular and non copular verb are not really explained. This sentence in that section is also not clear. "Syntactically equative sentences consist of two DP’s (demonstrative phrases) and a copular verb, which appears either as an empty auxiliary or as a true verb that shows identity between DP’s.[2]" Does it mean that a covert copula verb sits in the auxiliary position, or an overt copula is present? Are any non-copula verbs used as equatives? In the sentence above it refers to a "non-verbal element". What is meant by this? A covert copula in auxiliary position is still under a VP and is a verbal element. I suggest being more consistent with your wording in this section.

If possible, provide a theory section to give background on the topic. The mention of syntax in the “grammatical function” section would be a good place to start. Examples and including tree diagrams to show how two DP elements are equated at the syntactic level, as mentioned, would help clarify the content and delve deeper into the theoretical aspects underlying equatives.

Providing an example for Arabic would keep the page more consistent and clear. All of the other languages shown on the page use examples to clearly demonstrate how equatives work in that language, which is not very clear in the Arabic section.

More emphasis should be placed on having a clear explanation to people who have no linguistic background (not too technical) Eg. introducing the Null Equative Head in Okanagan Salish without much explanation. Make sure to define all words that would not be familiar to someone outside of the field. Remember to write at a level the average person could likely understand.

Please provide translations in the examples 12 and 13 under Russian.

Your research is really well done. It seems like you put a lot of effort into getting as much information as you could. You have a lot of different examples to illustrate equatives.

Your language is neutral, which is ideal. We did not notice any strong statements or opinions. Zlawler (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed reference section to separate citations and references not cited according to the style used in other linguistic articles with high ratings.Sweeeetheart (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

After reading the "Grammatical Function" subtopic we feel as if it is still not clear what equatives do to grammatical function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhmathisen (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Marisadavidson13 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Edited introduction; the phrase 'note that' was removed because although it contrasts the different uses of equative, it makes this point sound like a side note. Because this is the introduction I think it is better to state the concept factively and leave side notes which can be developed (either in other articles or later in this one) for later or leave them out of the intro. It also rounds off the end of the intro stylistically to have 3 points, this one becoming the final example use of equatives.

I also changed the bracketing to make the intro flow better and be more consistent with the other formatting. Generally brackets seem casual or at least choppy. They also often show less important side notes, and since the content in the brackets was important to understanding the introduction I took them out. I would also suggest removing the last brackets around (susan and our president) and treating them as you have "be" by putting them in quotations. Sweeeetheart (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Milestone 4. Comments
I added the 'Theories and Debate' section, divided it into several subsections, made an overview, and tried to add as much information as possible. Then, as was recommended, I deleted the 'Grammatical Function' section because it provided no new information, and made the lead section a bit bigger. Translation to Russian examples was added. Where possible, I inserted links to other Wikipedia pages and gave an example of non-copular element in the equative (see the lead section). 'Haitian Creole' section was edited and extended as well. KaterynaSto (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I added in the citation for Polish and expanded more on it with more examples. As suggested by Johnathan, I lined up the examples and translations word by word for clarity. Also, i divided Korean into two subsections since there are two equative structures in the language. Tinalin728 (talk)

My main goal for this revision was to improve the clarity in my language section. (Okanagan Salish) I used the subheaders to illustrate examples of different equative structures in the language. As a group we decided to keep the format for the article "list style," with each language section showing how equative structures appear in the language. This is for the sake of clarity, as writing sections for each structure (DP=DP, etc) would convolute how the information contained in the article is to be portrayed. I added photos of language examples to provide a more visually clear understanding of said examples. Also, on the advice of our second technical meeting, I added a sidebar for Wikipedia's "Linguistics Portal." --Jaylinm (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I was mainly focused working on Korean language example section and trying to make more improvement in this section as other group members were working on other sections. I found the equative copula in the language as there are apparently more DP=DP structure example datas. I was also trying to find some DP=CP structure examples and also lined up those examples and make the example sentences more easier for the people who don't have the background of the language to read. I added the citation into the section and tried to fix the citation mistakes as well as extended and giving more information about the example language. Ylyvonne (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In my revision, I organized the Chinese data into DP-DP and DP-CP sections, in doing so, adding a brief introduction and the DP-CP section. I also added Chinese into the Non-Copular section and provided data and explanation for doing so. Alicears (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I split the introduction into three different paragraphs: a general definition; how languages differ with regards to equatives; and the other possible realization of 'equatives'. I then performed some minor corrections in the 'Debate on Taxonomy' section and added a hyperlink to the word 'taxonomy' as its definition is not well-known. I likewise added a hyperlink to the term 'predicate' and 'referent' in that section. I made minor revisions in the next three sections: 'Reduction of Taxonomy', 'Debate on Equatives' and 'Halliday's Semantic Analysis of Equatives', where I also added a hyperlink to 'ascription'. I finished by adding examples to and editing two of the sentences in the Arabic section paragraph. Lazmike (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What is CP?
This article keeps talking about CP and DP=CP, but never actually defines the term CP, not even what it stands for. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)