Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Split order of a sentence

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE to word order.

The votes were 2 delete, 2 merge, 1 redirect. dbenbenn | talk 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Split order of a sentence
The entire text of this article is: This divides the predicate into two parts with the subject coming in the middle: e.g. In California oranges grow. There are no inbound or outbound links, and it reads more like a dictionary defnition than an encyclopedia article. I don't see how it could be expanded, and the content would fit better in one of Sentence (linguistics), grammar, English grammar or an expanded piece of the linguistic use of Predicate. Thryduulf 14:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * After the discussion below, I feel Word order is a better location than my initial suggestions above. Thryduulf 16:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed this article should be deleted. Josh Cherry 15:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have plenty on this topic. There's nothing to merge.  Redirect to Object Subject Verb. Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Linguistically this is not the same as OSV word order as objects are not the only post-verbal elements that can be moved to the front of the sentence (the example in the existing stub for instance, which fronts a prepositional phrase). It is merely a linguistic device used in English and some other languages to put emphasis on that part of the sentence (e.g. "I can't see Jill." "And what about Bill?" "Bill I can see".) However in all my experience studying linguistics I've never heard it called "split order of a sentence" and indeed, Google only shows two unique sentences on the Net using the phrase. There's not too much to say about it so I vote to merge with English grammar. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 18:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote changed: merge with word order. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 16:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Linguistically this is not the same as OSV word order &mdash; Take that up with the writers of English grammar, then, not me. For it is they who rely upon Object Subject Verb for detailed information on English word ordering. Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you think is there that favours a Merge over a Redirect. I don't see anything.  But that's just an incidental.  More importantly, I think that Object Subject Verb is the better target of the redirect than English grammar.  The latter is simply both too general and too specific.  It's too general, in that the reader then has to follow further links to find information on sentence ordering since English grammar has nothing specific (and, ironically, ends up at Object Subject Verb anyway, passing through Subject Verb Object along the way).  It's too specific, in that it describes English grammar, when "split order of a sentence" doesn't necessarily imply English at all.  Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * The Google search indicates to me that this is terminology from someone's textbook, by the way. Depending from the popularity of the textbook, people may or may not be calling it that. Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * If it was a particularly popular textbook and the term was widely used because of that I'm sure there would be more than two sentences on the Internet using it. Linguists usually just call the phenomenon of moving something to the beginning of a sentence "fronting" and use more specific terms like "object fronting" only when further specification is needed. And I'm still not convinced that Object Subject Verb is the right place for this, since this kind of fronting can occur even in sentences with clear Subject Verb Object word order, for example "To John I threw a ball." Where "I" is the subject, "threw" is the verb, "a ball" is the object and "to John" has been fronted in the same way as the original example. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 19:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it was a particularly popular textbook... &mdash; I made no assertions one way or the other as to its popularity. Uncle G 22:56, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Linguists usually just call the phenomenon..."fronting" &mdash; So why isn't your vote "Redirect to fronting" ? &#9786; Uncle G 22:56, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that Object Subject Verb is the right place for this &mdash; It's better than English grammar, though. If one starts at any of the alternatives suggested, and attempts to find articles that specifically address sentence ordering, and specifically this particular sentence ordering, that's where one eventually ends up.  (And, indeed, there is where one finds the text that talks about the implication of non-normal word ordering in English.)  English grammar isn't even the next best candidate.  That would be Word order. Uncle G 22:56, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Word order is a better place for this. Vote changed. I don't feel creating a fronting article should be done until more information can be gathered on it; for now it would be better to place what little information we have in the context of another article. Of course, the same phenomenon could be mentioned on Object Subject Verb but it shouldn't be the main place for information on focus fronting. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 16:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to settle on Word order. Object Subject Verb is where the information currently is, but I think that we both agree that it's not where it belongs.   Uncle G 03:33, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * I've also reworded the article so not as to be a copyvio from one of those two sentences. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 18:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a helpful classification, duplicate content. Wyss 21:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge' anything useable to Word order, no redirect. Megan1967 08:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.