Talk:Null-subject language

Russian example
To be precise, Russian verbs do not have person marked in the past (which btw results in less frequent pronoun drops in the past then in other forms); but they have gender in singular. We just know that the Latin original phrase is first-person, but without this background пришёл, увидел, победил is 'I-m./you-m./he came,' etc. Ignatus (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

English
There seems to be quite a lot of this in English, at least in the first person singular, perhaps mainly in slightly informal contexts, like "Don't know much about history, don't know much about biology"; "Will you come to-morrow?" "Can't, I'm afraid"; "Can't pay, won't pay," and so on. Seadowns (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese requiring an expressed topic
The article states:
 * Japanese and several other null subject languages are topic-prominent languages: they require an expressed topic in order for sentences to make sense.

Although Japanese is topic-prominent, sentences definitely don't require an expressed topic to make sense. For one, the topic is always omitted when it is the same as the subject, and in other situations the topic, subject, and object can be, and frequently are omitted entirely, whenever they are expected to be implicitly understood. I will try to reword this section. LeeWilson (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-drop parameter, parameter settings in the brain
this article should also include stuff about chomsky and "pro-drop parameter" and "parameter settings in the brain" Bogdan | Talk 19:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree. - FrancisTyers 17:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-drop languages
I think there's considerable overlap (and confusion) between "null subject" and "pro-drop". Modesty aside, I think the coverage of the subject in pro-drop language is fine, though of course this is not exactly the same phenomenon. I'd prefer to see these articles merged into one. In any case, I'm putting this up for attention. --Pablo D. Flores 14:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but I do think a language can be one but not the other. Esperanto, for example, is non-pro-drop, but it seems that it is null-subject, since impersonal sentences do not require a subject. Conversely, it seems that a language that allowed some pronouns to be dropped, but never subject pronouns, would be pro-drop, but non-null-subject. I think the articles should simply do a better job explaining the difference. Alternatively, perhaps it should be explained that "null subject" and "pro-drop" are two different ways of looking at what is usually the same phenomenon: while the latter sees pronouns being dropped, the former doesn't see pronouns having been there to begin with. Also, perhaps it is better to say that one language can be more null-subject or pro-drop than another, rather than to attempt to categorize languages as either null-subject or not. Ruakh 05:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to do a better job explaining the difference between null-subject and pro-drop. As of now, I don't quite get how this is in practice. Also, note that all examples in the article are in fact examples of pro-drop, leaving me wondering what other cases would look like. EldKatt (Talk) 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pro-drop is defined as the possibility (or the idiomatic obligation) of leaving out pronouns when pragmatically inferable. That's something completely different from the null-subject definition, which doesn't mention pragmatics at all but just syntax; and this article also mixes 1) null-subject as an example of pro-drop, and 2) null-subject as the alternative to dummy pronoun usage with semantically impersonal verbs. Then we had a lengthy discussion months ago about those, and settled on a NPOV compromise... but I still think it in it's raining is truly meaningless and an artifact of syntax. I suggest everybody (including myself) gets well into the subject and then we can discuss, so that we don't have neither overlap nor contradiction among articles. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Slovenian language
I'm a Slovenian, and based on my understanding of null subject languages, Slovenian is one too.

Example:

I am eating.

Jem.

You are eating.

Ješ.

The verb agrees with subject in person and number, and if the subject is omitted, the verb itself signifies who is the object (in a given contex).

Compare:

Jaz jem. would mean It is me who is eating. or Moi, je mange. (in French).


 * Most, if not all, Slavic languages are like this (Russian, for example), and I see no reason for them not to be on the list, as it's a very prominent feature of those languages. Your examples in Russian: I am eating = (Я) ем, You are eating = (Ты) ешь. Another example: - Где Аня? - Ушла = - Where's Anna? - (She) went out. 84.202.199.101 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see any difference between Russian and Latin in this respect. The subject is in the verb form.( Also, I think someone has written object above when meaning subject.)Seadowns (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger from Null subjects
It is evident that we don't need both articles. Does anyone see any problems or other issues in merging these two? --Lambiam Talk 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, sounds good to me. Ruakh 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They clearly refer to the same thing and this is better named, so merge away! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So done. --Lambiam Talk 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish?
I don't know whether Irish should be considered a null subject language or not. In Irish, some finite verb forms are inflected for person and number (synthetic forms), while others aren't and have to have an explicit subject (analytic forms). Using explicit subjects with synthetic forms is ungrammatical. So for example, the 1st person singular present indicative is synthetic: molaim means "I praise", and *molaim mé is ungrammatical (Irish being VSO the verb precedes the subject). But the 3rd person singular present indicative is analytic: molann sé means "he praises" and *molann without an explicit subject is ungrammatical (except in tag questions and as an answer to a question). So what's weird about Irish compared to "canonical" null-subject languages like Portuguese is (1) not all finite verb forms carry person and number information, and those that don't may not have a null subject, and (2) verb forms that do carry person and number information must have a null subject; it isn't optional. —Angr 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that given what you just said, Irish is a null subject language, but that what you just said bears explanation in the article. Ruakh 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll see if I can dig up some sources. —Angr 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, in light of the discussion below, I won't bother. —Angr 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Which languages to mention?
Mentioning a few diverse null subject languages in the article serves two purposes: (A) to give the reader for who this is a new concept a few examples they might be familiar with; and (B) to illustrate that this feature occurs in widely divergent language families. There are some 2000 null subject languages, and it is pointless to list here as many as possible. Additionally, there is a serious problem of unverifiability. If some user adds, say, Cotoname, who is going to verify this, or, alternatively, challenge this? So I propose to whittle and keep the list down to, say, ten widely known (if only by name) diverse languages. Other viewpoints? --Lambiam Talk 00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with you 100%. Maybe more than 100%, even.


 * The current text is thus:


 * Among the null subject languages are Latin, most Romance languages (including Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, Franco-Provençal, Italian, and Romanian – but not French), Slavic languages (Polish, Slovenian, Croatian, etc.), Finnish, Hungarian, Modern and Ancient Greek, Amharic, Arabic, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Persian, Tamil, Tigre, Tigrinya, and Turkish. Old Germanic languages also had this feature, for instance Old Norse regnir ("it rains").


 * How is this?:


 * There are some 2000 null subject languages in the world, from a wide diversity of unrelated language families. Null subject languages include Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese, as well as most of these languages' relatives, and many other languages besides.


 * (with references, of course). Is that still too long? I went with five languages I figured everyone would have heard of; I included two Indo-European languages because I assume it's the world's largest language family (in terms of number of speakers), and it's certainly the one most familiar to English Wikipedians, so it seemed worthwhile. The three others are all thought to be genetically unrelated to each other and to the Indo-European languages, though obviously the languages have influenced each other to varying extents.


 * Thoughts?


 * Ruakh 02:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah! If you want to have such a cut, you should name language families, and not languages. Velho 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is in general not a property of language families but of individual languages. --Lambiam Talk  07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True. Even languages as closely related as French and Spanish can differ on whether or not they allow null subjects. —Angr 07:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lambiam — Is that true? True, French is the only major Romance language that doesn't allow null subjects; but in general, I think null-subject-allowing might well be a property of language families. (Obviously it depends on big a family you're talking about, though; it's not obvious to me that Indo-European languages can, as a group, be considered null-subject.) Ruakh 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's somewhat of a truism to say that the tighter the relationship between two languages, the more likely they are to share a typological or other grammatical feature, and being null subject follows that pattern. It is not a very enlightening observation; it holds likewise for the preferred branching direction, the presence of a dual, or having a vocative. I can't claim to be an expert on the matter, but specifically for null subjects it would appear that distinction for person in the conjugation is a prerequisite. Since this was largely lost in French (except for being stubbornly retained in the orthography), it would explain the French exception to the Romance family. Modern Germanic languages tend not to inflect for person in the plural forms, which may explain their mandatory subject. I conjecture (but cannot check) that conversely languages having a clear person+number distinction in the verb will tend to be null subject. Changes of inflectional paradigm are among the more common in language evolution, possibly making the null subject feature one of the less stable ones. --Lambiam Talk  17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Velho — The problem with that is, it's hard to name language families that people have heard of. If we say, "Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese", people know what that means; if we say, "Romance languages, Indo-Aryan languages, Semitic languages, Sino-Tibetan languages, and Japonic languages", that's a lot more verbose and a lot less clear. Ruakh 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the text in the article by Ruakh's text, but instead of the absolute number 2000 (which is an undocumented estimate) I've put the vague but unassailable "a considerable part" (of the world's languages). --Lambiam Talk 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't imperative sentences independent clauses?!
Why shouldn't we mention that imperative sentences often come without subject?! Velho 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We should; it's just that that wasn't the place for it. I've now added that information in a section where it's more relevant (Null subject language). —RuakhTALK 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the difference between independent clauses and dependent clauses has nothing to do with anything. —Angr 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ele está a chover"
I've corrected the section which said that the construction "ele está a chover" doesn't exist in portuguese based on: and (both links are in portuguese) --LeRobert 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting your "correction", because "ele está a chover" gets zero hits on Google aside from this article (compared with "está a chover"'s 27,100), which casts a great deal of doubt on your sources' claim, and "ele chovia" gets 44 hits (compared with "chovia"'s 174,000, though that's a bit hard to interpret because it looks like "chovia" is a noun as well), which means that even if one person claims it's correct, the vast majority of Portuguese speakers apparently feel otherwise. —RuakhTALK 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those links referred to a very famous Portuguese song. All I wanted to show was that it's perfectly fine to use that construction even if it's not a very common one (maybe that sentence is not a very good example for this article). --LeRobert 10:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think existing in a single very famous song makes a construction "perfectly acceptable" for normal speech, other than in (explicit or implicit) reference to that song. —RuakhTALK 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You only very rarely hear that in Portuguese. It's either done for literary purposes, or (perhaps) characteristic of a few dialects. I think it's fair to say that it's not a part of the standard language, and I would not count it as a counterexample, myself. There is no comparison between those examples and English "It rains" or French "Il pleut", where the pronoun is absolutely mandatory. FilipeS 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right Ruakh! However I only mentioned the song to show you that it's not such an unseen feature. It is rare (I agree with you Filipe) but it isn't wrong as it is stated in the article. --LeRobert 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But c'mon! The article shouldn't point to the possibility of "ele" appearing. It looks now as if it was kind of an option or so. Whenever "ele" appears in such constructions, it is always somehow non-standard or even anti-standard. The article isn't giving the right idea! Velho 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. With Ruakh's rewrite, the article is fine. FilipeS 13:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! --LeRobert 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose to take out the example sentence Está a chover entirely from the Examples section:
 * One way or another, it is somewhat anomalous since this is an impersonal construction.
 * Impersonal constructions are dealt with separately in the next section.
 * There is also a more general treatment of this in the article Impersonal verb.
 * Then we can drop this subject. :) --Lambiam Talk  07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Lambiam's suggestion. "Ele está a chover" is a very, very marginal construction. FilipeS 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never ever met 'ele está a chover', or actually any instance of 'ele' as the subject of an otherwise impersonal construction in my lifetime as a native speaker and careful observer of the language. There is only 'Ele acontece.../há...' as a fixed expression. I'm willing to admit it might occur in dialectal or archaic usage, of the sort that nobody will ever meet in normal life. The song mentioned uses the fixed and normal, albeit stilted, 'ele há'.77.54.70.64 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Very different situations for the current Portuguese examples
I am Brazilian and thus a native speaker of Portuguese. I would like to point out that according to Portuguese grammar, the second example (with "It is raining") is not exactly a case of omitted subject, and therefore may not be a case of null subject as defined here. Additionally, there is a good and precise reason why the subject may be omitted in the first example (with "I am going home").

In the first example, "Vou para casa" ("I am going home" - or, literally, "[I] go to [my] house" - there are actually two omitted pronouns in this sentence, one personal and one possessive!), it is simply the very detailed and precise Portuguese verb conjugation, mostly with a different verb form for each person, number and tense combination, that makes the pronoun implicit and redundant.

In other words, there is no way a pronoun other than eu ("I") could be used with vou; so, there is no gain in information content by using the pronoun explicitly (or loss by not using it). Both forms are grammatically correct and it is usually left to the speaker's or writer's preference to use either of them. However, as mentioned in the text, Brazilian Portuguese is indeed more liberal with using explicit pronouns or not than European Portuguese, where emphasis considerations weigh more (here in Brazil, we not only use the pronoun for emphasis, but must use the right voice tone when emphasis is desired - that is, the emphasis itself must be emphasized!). For this very reason, we are taught in school that it is considered more elegant to avoid using explicit subjects whenever possible, especially with eu, because saying "eu, eu, eu" all the time can be interpreted as a sign that the person is a total egocentric...

On the other hand, there are some verbs and tenses where the first and third person singular are conjugated the same way. The same very irregular verb ir ("to go") offers an example in the so-called imperfect past tense: "Eu ia à igreja" ("I used to go to church") and "Ele/ela ia à igreja" ("He/she used to go to church"). In such cases, the speaker or writer is advised to check if there are enough context clues before deciding whether to use an explicit subject or not, because otherwise there may be room for ambiguity sometimes.

However, chover ("to rain") is a completely different case. It is not a case where the subject may be omitted because it is already implicit: chover and other "weather" verbs are a special case of so-called "impersonal defective" verbs, and in their commonest usage (as in "It is raining" - "Está chovendo" in Brazil or "Está a chover" in Portugal), they are only conjugated in the third person singular and syntactically are considered to have no subject at all. That is, the subject is not being omitted - Portuguese grammar considers that it simply does not exist! (There are, however, figurative constructions which may have a subject, and then the verb will be conjugated accordingly; the prestigious Houaiss dictionary gives some examples, such as: "Após o apelo na TV, os donativos choveram." - "After the appeal on TV, donations rained.") With that in mind, is the basic sense of chover a null-subject example as defined by this article? I am not so sure.

I am not very proficient in Spanish, but the two languages are very similar, including much of their grammar, and I believe these same remarks probably apply to Spanish as well (including the case of llover - "to rain").

What do you think? --UrsoBR (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Over-representation of constructed languages
Here and in other linguistics articles, constructed languages are over-represented. That a given constructed language has a given characteristic is really irrelevant for most purposes, because it doesn't say anything meaningful about the characteristic (all it says is that the language's constructor thought it a good idea). That said, I feel awkward about removing this content without some sort of discussion first … so, thoughts? —RuakhTALK 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. There are around 2000 Null Subject Languages and such from the 3 languages presented 2 are Interlingua and Esperanto? Mirc mirc 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I reintroduced part of that section, for the following reasons. First, the section was nearly blanked. I can see devoting less space to one language type than another, but I see no reason to single out one type and nearly obliterate it. Second, the information was removed under the misunderstanding that this section deals with constructed languages and is therefore not meaningful. While Esperanto is considered constructed, Interlingua is considered a naturally occurring language, so it isn't clear to me how it is somehow less meaningful than French or Japanese. In any case, I think it's a big leap from "constructed" to "meaningless", and it seems an overstatement to suggest that including one constructed language is an over-representation. Finally, several officially null-subject languages are included, just not in the auxiliary language section. I've made this clearer in the text. Cal (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "Interlingua is considered a naturally occurring language": What the heck? —Ruakh TALK 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Gode's Manifesto de Interlingua, which explains that Interlingua didn't require any construction, and the Introduction to the Interlingua-English Dictionary, which describes how Interlingua is seen as developing naturally over hundreds of years. It's essentially the latent presence of a single language within the world's languages. The basic premise of Interlingua is that an international language doesn't need to be constructed: it exists.


 * Regarding my recent revision, I see no reason why a particular type of language - the auxiliary type - should be singled out and presented with no examples to facilitate comprehension. To my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't consider prejudice to be a basis for making edits. Cal (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse "naturalistic" with "naturally occurring". Interlingua did, in fact, require construction.  From Wikipedia herself, "Interlingua was developed to combine a simple, mostly regular grammar" and "Conversely, it is used as a rapid introduction to many natural languages" (emphasis my own).  Had Interlingua not required construction, it would have existed before the publication of both Manifesto de Interlingua and Interlingua-English Dictionary, with native speakers being the authority on the language.  This was inarguably not so.  At the same time, it is designed to feel like and act like a natural language (specifically it feels Romance), making it thus naturalistic.  Though not to a great extent. PatrickNiedzielski (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Semitic Languages
There is something I want to clarify before I write sections on Hebrew and Arabic. In null subject languages, is it necessary or just optional to omit the subject? I need to know this to finish my section on Hebrew. --Vgp0012 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just optional; Hebrew is indeed a null subject language (especially in the past tense). However, please think about whether these sections are really helpful, and if you do write them, please keep them brief; the last thing we need is for this article to mushroom in discussing the minutiae of fifty million languages. Indeed, we already have an "Auxiliary languages" section that's really just pointless and needs to be either eliminated, or shortened to just a sentence or two. —Ruakh TALK 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Given Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think it would be difficult for any one editor to decide unilaterally which languages should be included in an article. One option would be to have a Specific languages section, with subsections Hebrew, Arabic, and Auxiliary languages. This way, the Auxiliary languages section would be less obtrusive. I've seen this approach used in many linguistic Wikipedia articles. It seems to work well, and I find the diversity of information very helpful. Cal (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

List
We need a List of null-subject languages as well as a List of non-null-subject languages. Openodd (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing parenthetical from Latin example
I'm removing the parenthetical addition from 94.225.100.28 on 30 September, 2011‎
 * (The above is a rather ambiguous example. In Latin the subject is not necessarily stated through a (personal) noun, but implied through conjugation. Therefore, the subject is present indeed: the first person singular is stated through the “i” in “ven-i“, “vid-i”, “vic-i”, and through the “o” in “cogit-o”. “To think, therefore to be” would be the literal translation of “Cogitare ergo esse“; “I think, therefore I am” is the truly literal translation of “Cogito ergo sum”. The stated examples are hence not a case of null-subject.)

Since the rest of the article considers verb conjugation to be perfectly compatible with classifying an example as Null-subject, even typical. 94.225.100.28's interpretation makes sense, but doesn't fit with the rest of the article. Aidan (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, Latin is an example. The problem is that the so-called "literal translations" (literal !) there now give the false impression that in fact subject person is unexpressed in the Latin, e.g. that veni could be just as well "you came" as "I came", when actually it's perfectly well expressed, just inflectionally rather than via an explicit pronoun subject.  Needs fixed. 4pq1injbok (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem with the Latin is. The article says right there in the second paragraph, "null-subject languages express person, number, and/or gender agreement with the referent on the verb, rendering a subject noun phrase redundant." This is exactly what's happening in the Latin examples: "veni" is conjugated in first person, so it does literally mean "I came", but the pronoun "I" ("ego") is not explicitly used in the sentence. If anything, the literal translations could put the subject in brackets to make it clear that what information is conveyed through the verb conjugation. But aside from that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with these examples. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the problem is with including Latin as an example, but rather that after 'veni, vidi, vici' it gives a "literal" translation as 'came, saw, conquered' and then an "idiomatic" translation that reads 'I came, etc.' The problem is that 'came, saw, conquered' would not be considered a "literal" translation by any Latin scholar or teacher. I am a Latin teacher and I would expect the pronoun expressed in an English rendering since it's clearly expressed in the Latin. The "literal" translation implies that Latin doesn't mark person and number on verbs, which is of course false. Now that I look at the other examples it looks like this problem pervades the article. Someone is trying to "recreate" the effect of such languages (I call them pro-drop) in English. The problem is that you can't create the effect in English, which is one of the points of the article, i.e. English is not a null-subject language! 'came, saw, conquered' does not create the effect that a Latin speaker would feel upon hearing 'veni, vidi, vici', in fact 'I came, I saw, I conquered' is as close as one can get to create the effect of this phrase in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Rich people and Hebrew grammar
What does this bit mean?
 * Subjects can usually omitted only when there is rich person cross-marking on the verb, as in third person plural in the example above.

There are some words missing, and I'm reading this as
 * Subjects can usually [be] omitted only when there is [a] rich person cross-marking on the verb, as in [the] third person plural in the example above.

-- which makes no sense. Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha. O.K., so in Hebrew, whether or not you can drop the subject depends largely on the verb form. For example, you can always drop first- and second-person pronouns in the past tense, largely because the verb endings in the past tense draw all the distinctions that these pronouns do, anyway. (First-person singular aní halákh ti , first-person plural anákhnu halákh nu , second-person masculine singular atá halákh ta , second-person feminine singular at halákh t , second-person masculine plural atém halakh tém /halákh tem , second-person feminine plural atén halakh tén /halákh ten .) By contrast, you can't drop these pronouns in the present tense, because the present-tense verb forms are only marked for gender and number, not for grammatical person. (Well, I suppose you can sometimes drop them, like how in English you can sometimes say "Coming?" instead of "Are you coming?", but it's very colloquial &mdash; generally even more so than in English, I think, though I guess it depends on the specific case.)
 * Verb inflection is far from the only factor in determining whether you can leave out the subject, but it's a major one.
 * So I assume that "when there is rich person cross-marking on the verb" is supposed to mean something like "when the verb form is marked for [= inflected to agree with] the grammatical person of the subject".
 * —Ruakh TALK 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Explicit subject
I do not understand the concept of 'null subject' as explained here at all. In a form such as 'tulissem' it is surely the final grapheme/morpheme that carries the 'subject' information and is every bit as explicit as 'ego', which is quite simply made redundant and need not be added but can be added in some cases for particular effect. In languages where the pronoun information is usually explicitly required, the omission of it (Weiss nicht/Don't know) is possible because the context ensures that it is understood (Pamour (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)).

Catalan, Spanish
Taken in account that the text is almost the same those sections could be together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.123.118.0 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hindi
"“Radical pro-drop is possible only in NP languages.”"

What is an NP language? I've searched the Wikipedia and failed. I see a lot of examples about "NP-completeness" in mathematics and computation; they obviously are not relevant. The only linguistic example I find is NP as an abbreviation of "noun phrase" but I can't make sense of that either in this context. — Tonymec (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Turkish
In Turkish it is not actually possible to omit the subject. Because the language do extensively make use of possessive suffixes. So you will never ever have to "guess" the subject... .
 * "Geldi." Can you please tell me who arrived, without guessing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleman (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)