Talk:Nawat grammar

New article
Please see my comments on the discussion page of the Pipil language article. --A R King 10:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still working on putting in wiki-links though. --A R King 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the links (as best I could, but improvements welcom). --A R King 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic work! This truly is a great example of an article (even more special since the language is endangered). Thank you so much for the inspiring read. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comments, Zyxoas! --A R King 08:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

C quality?
I wonder why this article has been rated C? Any explanations please? --A R King (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea. It's an extremely excellent article, possibly the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia for such a small language. Thank you! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You could check the detailed criteria of the various quality classes as they are mentioned on the pages of the three projects (WikiProject Mesoamerica, WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas) that rated this article. The first project, for example, mentions detailed criteria by class here. In that section, you could click on "More detailed criteria" (the [show] link) for the B class to look for a quality criterion this article does not yet meet. If you believe a re-evaluation is in place, you could start by repeating your question about this article's quality rating on that project's Talk page. The current rating may have just been picked because it's fairly average; a 'safe' rating. It may be very difficult for laypeople to tell whether what's in the article is any good and inline citations are completely absent. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, since Wikipedia articles must not contain original research (see WP:OR), what's in the article should be based on what's in the Pipil grammar section. This in turn means I could tag the article with Template:No footnotes, because the article's sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Construct
On revising the article I have thought it better to remove the grammatical term "construct" and use "possessed (form)" instead. Apart from the fact that many readers might find "construct" difficult because it is unfamiliar to them, the really important reason for the change is that I don't believe the Nawat pattern resembles the original phenomenon to which this term is most usually applied (i.e. Semitic languages) enough to warrant use of the same term. I myself HAVE used "construct" in the past but have changed my mind on it. Semitic constructs characteristically always precede a "possessor" noun and are never determined (i.e. definite). Nawat possessed forms: (1) are always used with a personal possessor affix; (2) need not be followed by a possessor noun; (3) ARE compatible with determiners. They may be somewhat reminiscent of Semitic-style constructs but I don't think there is enough overlap to conflate such different patterns. --A R King (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)