Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alethic mood


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alethic mood

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. I can find nothing on the web about this apparently obscure linguistic term, and the one source isn't available online. A coinage by the author of that work? Don't know. But at best it's a definition of a very obscure phrase. No notability established or establishable by me (if linguistic experts were to come up with some sources for this, that explains what we're really talking about -- for instance scholarly work that says which languages have these moods and which don't -- I might be convinced. But even then, isn't it still just a definition?) Bali ultimate (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt "Alethic modality" which has something to do with logic, and this claim about "Alethic mood" as a notable phrase in linguistics, are different from one another. There might be a case to be made for an article on "alethic modality" but all of those articles that mention "alethic modality" are talking about something very different than what is here. I find no research in those citations about an "alethic mood" peculiar to some languages, but not others, as this article asserts.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as plagarism/COPYVIO Text taken/stolen from page 272 of "Necessitating: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases" Ronabop (talk)
 * Comment. That book took its text from Wikipedia, not vice versa. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bali ultimate. I've read Frawley, the source cited, and this text is a misunderstanding of the source.  Frawley makes a clear distinction in &sect;3.1 between mood and modality, as grammatical and semantic respectively, and proceeds to discuss "alethic modality" in &sect;3.2.  He doesn't provide support for the notion of a grammatical mood, and indeed outright contradicts this article's premise of a grammatical distinction between the alethic and the epistemic, in any language, on page #9.  We already have alethic modality as a redirect, and since this content is contradicted by a source and the concept outright denied by that source, there seems no good reason to attempt to preserve this content, or have a redirect.  I've looked for other sources and found nothing to support the notion of any such grammatical mood as proposed here.  This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since "there is no formal grammatical distinction in English, and, perhaps, in no other language either, between alethic and epistemic modality." (The passage Uncle G was thinking of, no doubt.) At best, we have a distinction without a difference--but even in that best-case scenario, one could not distinguish by grammatical means between the alethic and any other mood. (This is, of course, how Wittgenstein made a living.) Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. It's also quoted on page 28 of ISBN 9789027223579, which then continues "The present investigation will not uncover one, either.".  Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In researching my !vote on this, I learned that Wikipedia has articles on grammatical moods I've never even heard of; this site never ceases to amaze me. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - can we get a few more academics who know more than I do to discuss this? I teach legal writing, and have worked on some linguistics stubs, but I'll be honest, I've never heard of this. Cf. Inchoate. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep this term exists in linguistics. check out these sources for example: .·Maunus· ƛ · 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.