Talk:Sentence word

[Untitled]
Group C3: Relativizer - reviewing Group C4 (sentence word)

1. Content a. This article is fairly well-written, although there are a few minor spelling errors and run-on sentences. The lead section does summarize the article’s key points, as intended, however it is a bit lengthy in doing so. More of this specific detail could be provided in the subsections of the article. b. This article is comprehensive. It gives a clear definition of what sentence words are, and further clarifies the definition with examples from English and other languages. In addition, this article also explains how sentence words were formed and how they are used. c. The claims in this article are supported by many reliable sources. In addition, there is support from inline citations. However, some of these inline citations are linked to pages that do not exist. For example, the links for “volzinwoorden” and “Worsätze”. The article includes the main relevant points and examples of sentence words from other languages. However, this article is not a representative survey of the relevant literature as it only introduces one hypothesis on the topic. d. This article maintains neutrality by providing examples from a number of different languages other than English. In describing the origins of ‘sentence words’, the views of a few different linguists are provided. A limitation on the neutrality of this article could be the explanation of only the Holophrastic Hypothesis, so far, in their description of child acquisition. e. The stability of this article could be improved by providing more detailed examples and explanations of the occurrence of sentence words in other languages, introducing other hypotheses with differing views related to child acquisition, and separately explaining the conditions in which sentence words occur in English (perhaps in a subsection). 2. Style a. The lead section correctly summarizes the main points of the article, however it is slightly lengthier than necessary. The detail included in the lead section here could instead be placed in the appropriate subsections. Additionally, the formatting is slightly off since it is not one concise paragraph. b. This article has appropriate structure, thus, containing a lead article, references and appropriate usage of sections and subsections. The word “and” was included in your links for “Yes.” and “No”, making them all one big link. I don’t know if this was intentional, but it looked like they were supposed to be two separate links. I can’t really find anything else besides the fact that in titles, only the first word in the title and proper nouns can be capitalized, all other words should be lower case. c. The citations in this article are consistent and use the proper citation style. However, some of the inline citations have broken links and do not work.

The word “and” was included in your links for “Yes.” and “No”, making them all one big link. I don’t know if this was intentional, but it looked like they were supposed to be two separate links. I can’t really find anything else besides the fact that in titles, only the first word in the title and proper nouns can be capitalized, all other words should be lower case.

3. Images There are no images used in this article. Visually, however, some of the examples from specific languages, such as the example in Hebrew, are presented in a non-standard format. Proper glossing conventions should be used in these instances. 4. Length: In general, the article’s length is sufficient. However, the lead article is too long and needs to be shortened to more of a summary format. There should be a separate section for examples, for the different views of linguists as well as a history/development of sentence words section to fix this issue. As well, much of the information in the lead article can be placed into existing sections such as the section “holophrases”. Either more information needs to be applied to both subsections of “Single-Word Utterances and Child Language Acquisition” or the subsection “Holophrastic Hypothesis Structural” needs to be shortened to more of a summary style in order to refrain from any unnecessary detail. Vletawsky (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Ball."
In

"Child: "Ball." (flat intonation) - Can mean "That is a ball." Child: "Ball." (rising inflection) - Can mean "Where is the ball?""

I have changed the period in the second "Ball." to a question mark to better reflect the child's intentions, because a rising inflection usually means a question mark in the English I speak.  Mr. Spink  talk ★ contribs 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

FOREVER YENA❤️🥺Bold 41.13.104.228 (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)