Template talk:Lexical categories

Problems with this template
I see some issues of concern with this template. First of all, it lists a lot more than just "lexical categories"; it is listing every variety of each lexical category. In generative grammar (and most other theories I know of, although generative is the one that's most relevant to the idea of "lexical category anyway), only the things on the left-hand column (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) are really "categories"; the others are just features of that category. For example, under the noun heading, "animacy" and "count/mass" and "common/proper" and "concreteness" and "agentivity" are no more separate categories than "transitivity" is for verbs. Plus, the many things listed under each row are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are just laundry lists of random features. For example, common and proper nouns can both be animate or inanimate, can both be mass or count, can both be concrete or abstract; no word is going to fit into just one link in this template.

Finally, the template is a bit anglo-centric. The rows it lists are pretty much the "typical" categories in an English school textbook. Other categories, such as classifiers (which are typologically pretty common), are relegated to an "other categories" row for no clear reason.

For these reasons, I don't think the template is really ready for inclusion yet, as it is not yet a useful or well-organized navigational aid. I have already removed it from Lexical category, and would like to remove it from the other pages in which it is transcluded as well. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is initially a default organisation suggested by the names of the articles. Please feel free to reorganise the list if you can see a better way of doing it, or a less anglo-centric way; in fact, some expert input on this would be very useful. The links in the template all correspond to Wikipedia articles (or very occasionally to sections within an article), so if they appear like a "laundry lists of random features" then perhaps the article organisation itself needs looking at. I think it's quite obvious that it's categories and then types within that category, so I don't feel that particular crticism is valid. It also is not the intention (and never could be) that every word fits exactly one categry/sub-category. Finally, remember that nothing in Wikipedia starts out perfect, or as the finished article, so don't be too hasty with deleting stuff straight away. Let's see if we can improve it instead. 86.146.47.248 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC).


 * First of all, the fact that it's a "laundry list" doesn't mean that the article organization needs to be improved; the articles themselves never purported to be "all the articles about lexical categories". It is only this template that suddenly tried to take a slue of articles and organize them as "articles about lexical categories". The article organization is not a problem; trying to force a new organization onto them by shoehorning them into a template is the problem.
 * Secondly, I never said it should be deleted. I said it should not be transcluded in article footers yet. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you not agree that all the articles linked to have a common theme? 86.146.47.248 (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * No. Things like "abstract/concrete" for nouns and "stative/inchoative/telic/etc." for verbs refer to semantic features, whereas lexical category is a phrase structure issue. Separating telic from atelic verbs (for example) is quite different than separating verbs from adjectives. To put it another way: "noun" and "verb" are lexical categories. "Count noun" and "mass noun" are not lexical categories, they're just subtypes of the noun category. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious what the template was trying to show and didn't imagine anyone getting tied up in this way. How about we change the name to "Lexical categories and "? I'm not sure what the best "something" would be... 86.146.47.248 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC). Or, if you prefer, remove the phrase "lexical categories" altogether and think of a completely different title?
 * Also, just a side note...some items seem to appear in more than one place in the template (for example, I see Copula (linguistics) linked twice). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I tried to avoid them but one or two crept in! 86.146.47.248 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC).