49.190.56.203

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

New message from TechnoSquirrel69

Hello, 49.190.56.203. You have new messages at TechnoSquirrel69's talk page.
Message added 01:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What to avoid in edit summaries

Re many of your edit summary @Noun:

What to avoid in edit summaries[edit source]

Shortcut

• WP:SUMMARYNO

• Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important. You could add something like "and misc." to cover the other changes.
• Avoid vagueness. While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. Providing an edit summary similar to "I made some changes" is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all.
• Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about "the truth", or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. For discussions, you should use the talk page.
• Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
• Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.

Warning: be careful of what you write in edit summaries. Inappropriate edit summaries may be used as evidence against you in behavioral complaints. This applies particularly to uncivil and deliberately misleading edit summaries. Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you must mean wording like this in your edit summaries: "Undid restoration of obfuscating, superfluous, and nebulous 'some other noun-like item' and 'another noun phrase' verbiage"; "bumptious prattling". Right? Very well, I'll be more kind if you will also. Meanwhile please DO read the details of any wikilink that you yourself furnish (and I collegially retain) – rather than reverting what you manifestly have not understood. (It's that sort of editorial insouciance that draws harsh language, when you do it repeatedly.) Then we'll all get along fine! ☺! 49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Indeed I didn't read the entire Argument (linguistics) article before linking it as a reference, not as a valid source, since Wikipedia is a reference tool, not a reliable source. I'm uninterested in editing the equivocations in the Argument article, but you seem to have seized on one of them, which you quoted to seemingly conclude that a subject phrase, as an argument of a predicate, may be noun phrase such that a subject phrase is the equivalent of a noun phrase. Nope. The two linguistic concepts overlap but there's no equivalence and no hyponomic relation between the former and latter, or vice versa. See the talk page @Noun if you care to discuss more. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You: 'In your 3.5 years of involvement you made no objection to that. It's hard to see your efforts to "correct" my own improvements to the section as not merely uninformed but also plain tendentious.'"

FYI, I'm not compelled to edit the unenumerable failings of Wikipedia articles re linguistics, grammar, semantics, etc. The only such editing I do occurs when I see a recent edit that IMO fails to improve such an article. Not until you pointed out the verbiage in the Argument (linguistics) article did I become aware of some sloppy wording there. Consequently, my edit linking that article falls into the category of edits that fail to improve. Only you know why you didn't emend/revise/revert my edit rather than simply complaining. That whole sequence should be water under the bridge since we seem to agree that the current wording is better now.

Your subsequent edits are, IMO, unsightly (i.e., first with underlines and later with bolds) at best but ill-advised under WP:NOTATEXTBOOK at worst. Have another kick at the can if you so choose, but I confess I have more productive things to do than to babysit an article for which I have neither personal nor professional use since I prefer my own proprietary definitions than the hit-or-miss characterizations given in Wikipedia's articles on grammar, linguistics, etc.

If you were familiar with my work, you'd be right to say I should agree that verbs take complements under my own definitions:

• complement (noun, grammar) - a word, phrase, or clause that is necessary to complete the contextual meaning or the structural integrity of a corresponding lexical item
• complement (transitive verb, grammar) - to constitute a word, phrase, or clause that is necessary to contextually characterize or syntactically complete the meaning or the structural integrity of a corresponding lexical item.

Per those definitions, I disagree that "Intransitive verbs have neither objects nor complements whether by linguistic analysis or just plain grammatical convention" is manifestly untrue; it's absolutely true that intransitive verbs don't have objects but arguably true that they may have complements. Indeed, my work identifies stative complements rather than what's traditionally termed as subject complements. Definition #6 in my lexicon denotes stative complement as "an outmoded taxon (invented in 1923) intended to classify a nominal word, nominal phrase, or nominal clause that complements a stative verb." Why don't I at least agree that transitive verbs have complements rather than objects? The answer is purely one of semantic convenience: To say "I (subject) gave (transitive verb) you (complement) advice (complement)" makes advice a complement-complement rather than an object complement a la "I (subject) gave (transitive verb) you (object; indirect object; dative object) advice (complement)."

Am I being tendentious in my objections to an edit that characterizes verbs as having complements when I infact assert, in my own work, that there is utility in identifying a certain type of lexical item as a stative complement? Nope. I simply think better of interpolating my own original research in contrast to what published linguists have inartfully expounded.

None of the above is linguistic rocket science, just a matter of semantic clarity. Please don't ask why, in my 5 years of involvement, I haven't made any collateral edits re my objections to re the Wikipedia article on Subject complements. In short, I admit how any lexical item that isn't a subject can philosphically be construed as a complement but, from a syntagmatic approach, I argue (1) that the right in "You are right" complements are as a stative complement, (2) that are complements You, and (3) it's vexatious to contend that right complements You as a subject complement. What, should we just ignore are in such instances?

No wonder non-native English speakers have difficulty learning our language when they read descriptions for such naive, outdated taxonimes as Subject complement. No, I'm neither intending to gift Wikipedia the benefit of my proprietary interest in what constitutes a stative complement nor interested in further explaining how that term is conceptually more cohesive than what linguists traditionally purport about a subject complement. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, rather than deal with the same issues at all places where you have posted, I reply here only.

Goodbye, and good luck! ☺♥ 49.190.56.203 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

---