User:AmnahEssa/sandbox

"Wikipedia discussion/evaluation assignment 2" Parts of speech

'''1-Check the "Talk" page of the article you've selected. What is the level of importance (or quality) assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that "grade?"'''

This article in the linguistics portal has been rated as of high importance on the project quality scale. The article's class level is rated C-Class level on the quality scale in the category of class theoretical linguistics. In the language portal, the article is rated of low importance and as for Start-Class on the project quality scale. The reason behind the rating is the fact that it would be of great importance to add a section of argumentative to advance it higher.

'''2- Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address?'''

There is a proper focus on the analysis of various issues addressed in this article. The comments found in this article address several issues that are directly related to the content. There seems to be a significant problem on the use of the Japanese examples on the parts of speech. The examples are claimed to be incorrect and misleading as there seems to be a confusion between the "correct" versus the "traditional" view.

The comments also raise complaints in terms of the content put across. The comment argues that the article not based on the real linguistic research but instead focuses on other languages that do not precisely have the required parts of speech or they cannot be properly categorized.

'''3- Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there a resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it?'''

There is an issue concerning the content of the article. The comment suggests on the expansion of the topics discussed to be more useful even for beginners to understand. In my observation, I feel that there should be some consideration for this issue since it is critical and needs some address accordingly. The primary solution for tackling of this problem is to ensure revision of the article to suit all readers.

The aspect of use of very complex vocabularies is also a challenge discussed in the talk page. I have made the same observation and I feel that lighter terms could be better for easy understanding of the article.

'''4-How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others.'''

The points addressed by the articles are precisely in accordance with our readings and discussions. However, there is more elaboration considering that other languages are also factored in but all in all we were able to completely cover the English aspect of the parts of speech as per the article. We were able to analyze this topic by what the article discusses and did not encounter any challenges presented on the talk page.

I tend to disagree with the discussion about the changing of the title of this article from parts of speech to lexical categories. The reason for the disagreement being that lexical category is not a commonly used term, and therefore it may be difficult to find it for those who need the article and do not know this term.

'''5- What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?)'''

The discussion is genuinely productive as it touches on some of the fundamental areas that need amendment. The discussion is also important in that it is an avenue for those that need clarity of a certain issue in the article to give their opinion and get responses hence acquiring an elaborated explanation on the articles point of view.

I feel that the article is entirely convincing in the covered category of the parts of speech. However, there should be a revision of the material to address the concerns raised in the talk so that it is entirely satisfactory to all readers. If the address is carried out based on the comments, then it is sure that there will be an improvement in the quality rating of the article. There is need to make the article more detailed regarding linguistics research to provide a precise analysis of the parts of speech and its subcategories.

Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Part_of_speech

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

"Wikipedia discussion/evaluation assignment 3" compound linguistics

Q1) What is the level of importance (or quality) assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that “grade?”

Answer)

The compounding importance originates from the fact that perhaps no languages are there without compounding. Also, it is considered as a way to formation of new word. Particularly, compounds are thought-provoking linguistic constructions for many reasons. First of all, they make an irregularity among constructions of grammar as “words”. Furthermore, compounds signify a point of contact among crucial notions of linguistic & nonlinguistic.

The C class level of article is considerable, however still missing some essential content relevant to the compound (linguistic). This article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial.

Q2) Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address?

Answer)

In this article, two comments or issues are addressed by the author:

1.     The elements make up compounds aren’t words however stems or roots in several languages.

2.     There is no clean distinction between compounds and phrases.

Particularly, such article becomes confusing about the portion where it explains examples from many languages.

Q3) Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it?

The two main issues expository and substantive issues are discussed. For expository issues, the delimitation, organization, development, as well as interpretation is valuable, whereas, interpretation and formation are for substantive issues. Moreover, the expository issues are descriptively oriented as well as invent in traditional grammar. And, substantive issues have a descriptive orientation as well as invent in theoretical methods to language.

Q4) How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others?

For compounds, the issue of the formation of rules is obvious in frameworks particularly that highlight form-based compounding properties. Rewrite compounding rules have been projected, generalizations over the input form selection as well as of linking elements, along with rules for stress assignment. Generally, compounds are thought of as comprising of two components, even though these components may contain more than one element. For such compounds along with three or more components, like copulative compounds, a structure of non-binary has been planned.

Q5) What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?

It is observed that words formation can convey complex & highly structured information. Simply, words don’t serve as minimal signs, random sound chunks that tolerate simply by feature of being distinct from each other. Some features of a word’s type may designate its underlying lexeme relations with others, whereas others specify grammatical structure properties within which it is made. Such relations substantively connect and defined classes that it is partially only directional in its essential nature as well as the formal networks among such classes are signaled in ways that are represented best as methods connecting one shape to another.