Talk:Non-configurational language

[Untitled]

Der Vorname der Autorin ist Eloise!!!

Typo!!!

japanese - orderOrder, 'null anaphora'?

• free word order

how is Japanese then qualifies? my Japanese friends here tell me 'verb last' is strict in Japanese... isn't it so?

• null anaphora

could someone explain 'null' anaphora? do anaphora's not exist, or a 'null' word acting as an anaphora?

• syntactically discontinuous expressions

- 16:52, 2006 February 6 83.84.24.136 (talk · contribs)

hi.

re Japanese:

yes, Japanese tends to be verb final. the canonical order is Subj Obj Verb. but, you put subjects after the verb depending on how you want to present the information. that is, you can change the order to "focus" on or emphasize something.

with that said, it is primarily the free word order of the noun phrases that is important. for example, you can say

1. Shizuko-ga Izumi-ni tegami-o kaita.
2. Shizuko-ga tegami-o Izumi-ni kaita.
3. Izumi-ni Shizuko-ga tegami-o kaita.
4. Izumi-ni tegami-o Shizuko-ga kaita.
5. tegami-o Shizuko-ga Izumi-ni kaita.
6. tegami-o Izumi-ni Shizuko-ga kaita.

The "meaning" is the same in all 6 sentences: "Shizuko wrote a letter to Izumi". The (pragmatic) focus, however, differs.

The article will be written someday.... peace – ishwar  (speak) 09:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

merger

The article Scrambling_(linguistics) offers little content on the theoretical treatment of scrambling and is largely redundnant with Non-configurational language. I propose this article be merged. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As it currently stands, Scrambling_(linguistics) is doing justice neither to the phenomena of scrambling nor to the (different) complexities involved in the analysis of non-configurational languages. I've created a separate, new page at Scrambling_(syntax) to try to address the deficiencies, and provide a link to non-config langs. Mundart (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is becoming less accessible with the recent edits. Much jargon is appearing that most Wikipedia readers will not understand. Examples that should be given with interlinear glosses appear in the running text.--Tjo3ya (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning individual linguists in the manner of the sections deleted is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia content should be accessible to a wide audience. The content should focus on issues, not on personalities. Who cares about the individual linguists! Only the most important personalities should appear in the main text. The names can appear in the notes, if they are necessary. I am going to remove the content again unless it is adjusted accordingly. We are nearing an edit war!--Tjo3ya (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The editors have restored the dubious sections without addressing my concerns. They are ignoring my pleas here for a discussion of the disputed issue. The issue concerns content that is appropriate for Wikipedia articles. They are adding sections written in a manner that is more appropriate for research articles in journals than for encyclopedia articles. They are relying heavily on personalities in presenting content rather than on the core ideas and linguistic insights. The personalities can be mentioned in the notes, if necessary. I am now going to again remove the problematic sections. I hope they do not continue to ignore my concerns. --Tjo3ya (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)