 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message edit
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This article needs help. One sentence is not adequate, nor is the fact there are no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.53.75 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
18th-century grammarians edit
The unsourced statement in this article that the language was changed by 18th-century grammarians introducing -ly forms seems highly unlikely. Linguistic prescription has seldom been that successful. I am in fact not aware that any such movement took place in the 18th century (though in cases where forms with -ly already existed I know of teachers pushing them against the flat forms), but if it did, we would need clear evidence before saying that it was so astoundingly successful. I suggest deleting the whole senetence if no source is found. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, when you wrote this comment, there was already a link to the MW video, and this clearly says that we have to thank 18th century grammarians not only for the incorrect injunction against flat adverbs but also "for the sad lack of flat adverbs today". --Espoo (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What is flat? edit
Based on the Garner reference adverbs that do not end in -ly but have no related adjective, e.g. often, too, so and the like are not called flat. Confirmation by knowledgeable native English speakers would be welcome. Additionally conclusive references are missing that would show how widely a rule is taught or is considered incorrect or correct. Thanks. Stefan Ivanovich (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Need explanation of the diagrams edit
The Analyses section has tree-like sentence diagrams, with symbols and abbreviations (S, NP, VP, etc.). There must be a WP article about those diagrams. Can we please identify what those diagrams are and point to the article about them? Thanks. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 07:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Which one hurt more? edit
Can somebody please explain the more correct word to use here? All of these examples make perfect sense—except for this one. I suspect that it has something to do with agreement with "one," but I really cannot figure it out. Thanks!Jtrnp (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing seems wrong with "more" ...
- Which = determiner
- one = pronoun (i.e. relating to either of two antecedent things)
- hurt = intransitive verb
- more = adverb (i.e. "to a greater/further degree/extent" regarding the two antecedent things) --Kent Dominic 17:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)