Talk:Proposition (grammar)

I have reverted this page to its previous form. It was changed to a redirect by user: Theleftorium. I have left talk on his page explaining this action and asking that it not be re-merged. This is an article about proposition as is used as a grammar and linguistic term and not proposition as related to philosophy which is the primary purpose of the other article.

Please do not re-merge this article but rather discuss on this page and then if overall opinion goes toward merger it can be done. Drew.ward (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I DID revert, since your edit summary only said "it's NOT the same"--which you have yet to prove. There is nothing in the article as you had it that adds anything; besides, it is not a clearly written article, and its references are vague to say the least. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where have you proven that it IS the same? Oh yeah you haven't. And as for the term common content, it requires no definition. It is simply content that is common to all three examples. If you don't have enough of an understanding of linguistics to know that then you have no business editing or determining the fate of this article. I have asked for editorial assistance and will revert again. Drew.ward (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the article on propositions. "Oh yeah"--please respond more maturely. Your "common content" has four examples, and it is not "simply" content that they have in common. The last example, for instance, has no "Joe." The fact that you don't actually state what the central proposition is and leave it up to us to deduce it--in your order, "go the store John," which is not grammatical--is telling. What you are trying to say here, about things being unaffected by mood, is what is covered--if not exhaustively--in Proposition_(Grammar). A less combative attitude would be more beneficial; it is possible you have a point, but shouting in edit summaries and threatening to edit-war here will not help you prove that point. It is more than likely that the Proposition article can do with additional information, and you are welcome to supply that, but treating "proposition" in grammar as something wholly unrelated to "proposition" in logic and philosophy is misguided. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history, some problems are now clear to me. You basically took this from What is a proposition?, and then adapted it in an attempt to not be guilty of copyright violations. I do note that that website says, "All these utterances may be analyzed as consisting of a predicate naming an event or state and one or more arguments naming referents that participate in that event or state." You left that out in your adaptation--but it is of course exactly what is found in the defition of "proposition" in Proposition. I understand also, now, those strange "references" at the bottom of your version of the article: those are the notes copied from the original website, not taking into account that you should have copied the bibliographical information also--and that at the very least you should have made clear that your primary source was a webpage from Ethnologue, but you gave no acknowledgment of that at all. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is correct. I did change the article quite a bit so as to avoid copywrite issues.  I also referenced and credited SLI as the source as well as the resources they had cited.  I also changed the text from the more technical wording they used to a simpler form so that people who do not have a strong background in linguistics can understand the explanation without having to look up further terminology.  There are only so may ways to word a good article on this.  SLI has a good article and this is based on theirs.  What is wrong with that? Drew.ward (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)