| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grammar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
"the grammar of a natural language" edit
In the very first sentence, why does it say "In linguistics, the grammar of a natural language"? Why not just "language"? Artificial languages usually have grammar as well. I see no reason to reduce the definition to natural languages. Yaouoay (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- The formal grammar article is more general and addresses artificial languages.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- But that does not answer the question as to why the article "Grammar" is overly specific in favour of natural languages. I would argue it's a factual error when the article says in linguistics, "grammar" applies to "natural languages" only (it doesn't say "only", but the implication is there imo). Doesn't linguistics also include the study of artificial languages? Esperanto has native speakers. If the way they use Esperanto grammar is studied scientifically, it would be linguistically so, right? Yaouoay (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's hard to say because the concepts are very abstract and ultimately philosophical: understanding how the fields are intimately connected, do formal languages have grammar in the same way that natural languages do, or is it a term used by analogy, where it wouldn't necessary be correct to imply that they are the same thing?
- Given the nigh-universal scope of natural language and the relatively formal, recent scope of formal languages, I could see it being written either way. Remsense聊 19:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- But that does not answer the question as to why the article "Grammar" is overly specific in favour of natural languages. I would argue it's a factual error when the article says in linguistics, "grammar" applies to "natural languages" only (it doesn't say "only", but the implication is there imo). Doesn't linguistics also include the study of artificial languages? Esperanto has native speakers. If the way they use Esperanto grammar is studied scientifically, it would be linguistically so, right? Yaouoay (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
lack of impartiality edit
"For example, some pedants insist that sentences in English should not end with prepositions, a ban that has been traced to John Dryden (1631–1700). His unjustified rejection of the practice may have led other English speakers to avoid it and discourage its use. Yet ending sentences with a preposition has a long history in Germanic languages like English, where it is so widespread as to be the norm.[citation needed]"
I think this passage should be removed. I don't think that an "impartial" article should accuse people of pedantry or of making unjustified rejections. 2600:1700:A5D0:4330:3803:6887:DAD8:CD5 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the article about John Dryden, you will see the truth in these claims. The passage need not be removed. The final sentence, however, does need a citation.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)