User contributions for 49.190.56.203

12 February 2024

• 02:1802:18, 12 February 2024 diff hist +11 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: Clarity and accuracy concerning "APA".
• 02:1302:13, 12 February 2024 diff hist +44 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: One more, working up to the most complex of these examples: New Zealand footballers

11 February 2024

• 22:4322:43, 11 February 2024 diff hist +68 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: More accuracy concerning those NPs that contain a proper name (or perhaps just a bare proper noun, in attributive use, on some views) but that are not themsleves proper names.
• 22:3622:36, 11 February 2024 diff hist +1 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: m Pluralise.
• 22:3622:36, 11 February 2024 diff hist +27 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: Fixed markup again; clarified examples.
• 22:3222:32, 11 February 2024 diff hist +7 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: Fixed my markup.
• 22:3122:31, 11 February 2024 diff hist +1 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: m Spelling.
• 22:3022:30, 11 February 2024 diff hist +3 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: m Added missing word.
• 22:2822:28, 11 February 2024 diff hist +475 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: Copyedited the first part of this section: accuracy, clarity, completeness – and a better tie to how things work at WP:MOSCAPS. For a complete example, Balkan (adjective), the Balkans, Balkanize, Balkanization, and the Balkans are now all mentioned (only the last is a proper name in current English; the rest are derived from or associated with "the Balkans"). Added "Trinidad and Tobago", among NPs as modifiers.

10 February 2024

• 09:0109:01, 10 February 2024 diff hist +1,275 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy: Detailed editing of the portion beginning "A proper name in philosophy in philosophy ...", for greatly enhanced accuracy; it's not yet perfect in its theoretical bearings by any means, but considerably better-grounded in what philosophers of language actually think and say; added a reference to "Names" in the Stanford Encyclopedia, an authoritative and comparatively accessible introduction to the relevant issues.

3 February 2024

• 23:2523:25, 3 February 2024 diff hist +359 User talk:MelanieN →Edit summary grief: Good luck!
• 23:2323:23, 3 February 2024 diff hist +363 User talk:49.190.56.203 →What to avoid in edit summaries: Good luck! current
• 23:2123:21, 3 February 2024 diff hist +359 Talk:Noun →Unfortunate polysemy of "of": Good luck!
• 23:1523:15, 3 February 2024 diff hist +1,500 User talk:Kent Dominic →Noun disagreements: a unified reply to text in other places: new section Tag: New topic
• 23:1023:10, 3 February 2024 diff hist +44 Talk:Noun →Unfortunate polysemy of "of": m Self-correction.
• 06:4806:48, 3 February 2024 diff hist +679 User talk:MelanieN →Edit summary grief: O, sorry ...
• 06:2306:23, 3 February 2024 diff hist +94 Talk:Noun →Unfortunate polysemy of "of": Linking to the slight changes I have now made, in presenting the two examples.
• 06:1706:17, 3 February 2024 diff hist −16 Noun →Noun phrases: Better presentation of the two examples. Tag: Reverted
• 06:1406:14, 3 February 2024 diff hist +123 Noun →Noun phrases: That was a fine edit (apart from the ridiculous edit summary); this simplification makes things easier for most readers, and more detail should be added at the article Noun phrase; see talk for discussion; I have now made changes in explanation and mark-up of the examples. ►³ Tag: Reverted
• 06:1206:12, 3 February 2024 diff hist +2,247 Talk:Noun →Unfortunate polysemy of "of": Drop stick; accept helpful and accurate jointly developed version; move on.

2 February 2024

• 22:1322:13, 2 February 2024 diff hist −6 Noun Undid revision 1202320189 by Kent Dominic (talk). See talk for detailed reasoning, showing an excerpt from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language; in brief, both the subject and the object are "arguments of the predicate" (as articles linked here make clear), so the punctuation and other details in this sentence should not give the wrong impression that only the object is such an argument. (☺!) Tag: Undo
• 22:1222:12, 2 February 2024 diff hist +2,966 Talk:Noun →Unfortunate polysemy of "of": Detailed reply: why I'm now restoring that punctuation in the article.
• 07:5907:59, 2 February 2024 diff hist +835 User talk:MelanieN →Edit summary grief: My reply ...
• 07:4607:46, 2 February 2024 diff hist +1 User talk:49.190.56.203 →What to avoid in edit summarieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Edit_summary&action=edit&section=3 edit source: m Punctuation
• 07:4207:42, 2 February 2024 diff hist +695 User talk:49.190.56.203 →What to avoid in edit summaries[edit source]: Reply Tag: Reply
• 07:3107:31, 2 February 2024 diff hist +2 Noun →Noun phrases: The previous editor still hasn't grasped what he himself wikilinked – though I even QUOTED one (of several) relevant portions in an edit summary. Once more, class: according to that article, and other sources that could readily be adduced, both the SUBJECT and the OBJECT are included among arguments of the predicate. That's why the detailing that I now restore is exactly correct (retaining "a", "an" ☺). READ the article, check Huddleston and Pullum (Chapter 4), think. ┬┬┬┬┬┬┬┬
• 05:1905:19, 2 February 2024 diff hist +9 Noun Reverting what was not a "simple tweak" at all: at the very link supplied (to Argument_(linguistics)#Arguments_and_adjuncts) we find this text: "The subject phrase and object phrase are the two most frequently occurring arguments of verbal predicates ... Jill likes Jack. ... Jill, for example, is the subject argument of the predicate likes, and Jack is its object argument." Read, learn, think, learn surprising new facts, be corrected, think again, edit; repeat as needed ... then ... STOP! ■ ■ ■ Tag: Undo
• 03:4003:40, 2 February 2024 diff hist +432 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style →Surely not American-style capitalisation after a colon in British-English articles?: Adjusting and adding to my suggestions for an RfC.
• 02:2302:23, 2 February 2024 diff hist +6 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style →Surely not American-style capitalisation after a colon in British-English articles?: Fixed indentations, in my reply to SMcCandlish.
• 02:2002:20, 2 February 2024 diff hist +2,198 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style →Responses by Tony1: Reply Tag: Reply

1 February 2024

• 23:0023:00, 1 February 2024 diff hist +896 Noun →Noun phrases: Rigour as opposed to ill-informed partisan rejection of perfectly mainstream terminology; to promote catholicity I have retained all the same links but sequestered controversial details in a note, including detailed referencing of CGEL – the current dominant grammar of the English language, linguistically informed and universally respected. Editors: only make alterations here if you REALLY know what you're doing; these are core linguistics articles, not jousting arenas. ■☺
• 11:0011:00, 1 February 2024 diff hist +74 Noun →Noun phrases: Edited to nullify unschooled objections. Note that "become", like "be" and several other verbs, does indeed take a (non-object, or predicative) complement – which is generally either an NP or an AP. Google is your friend here, readily delivering hits like this from learnèd works: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZR6yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA619&dq="complement+of+become+must+be+either+AP+or+NP" . Best not to assume that you ar the sole repository of knowledge: a hard lesson, for some. ←↕ Tag: Reverted
• 04:5404:54, 1 February 2024 diff hist +54 Noun →Alienable vs. inalienable nouns: Added this at the start: "Illustrating the wide range of possible classifying principles for nouns, ..."; this is desirable because it's just one of many classifying principles, and the reader should be informed that those too are "out there"; some adjustments, following that addition.
• 04:4604:46, 1 February 2024 diff hist +44 Noun →Noun phrases: Reworked this strangely contested paragraph: completeness (yes, if we give an example with NP complement of a verb – as we should – it's best to list that among the roles of an NP); efficient and strictly accurate wording throughout; suitable qualification where anything considered too recherché must be omitted ("usually", because someone may be squeamish about NP as head of an NP, etc.); tightly worded and tidily presented examples that cover all of the roles listed. ◘○○◘○○◘

31 January 2024

• 21:5821:58, 31 January 2024 diff hist −111 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style →Surely not American-style capitalisation after a colon in British-English articles?: Tidied my reply to SMcCandlish.
• 21:5521:55, 31 January 2024 diff hist +1,020 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style →Responses by Tony1: Reply Tag: Reply
• 07:0507:05, 31 January 2024 diff hist −395 Noun →Noun phrases: m Oops, removed my duplicated text.
• 07:0407:04, 31 January 2024 diff hist +143 Noun →Noun phrases: Look and learn, about complements of verbs.
• 06:1806:18, 31 January 2024 diff hist +629 Noun Restored accurate, informative, exquisitely expressed, authoritatively referenced assertion that is quite understandable for the reader on a quest for information; such accuracy and completeness, far from amounting to "obfuscating/superfluous qualification", is exactly the sort of precision that this encyclopedia aims for; the mere fact that some editors may not have previously encountered a highly relevant linguistic fact is no excuse for an unthinking reversion; think again – but carefully ♥.
• 06:1706:17, 31 January 2024 diff hist 0 Noun phrase m Fixed a page number (my own typo).
• 03:5503:55, 31 January 2024 diff hist +804 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style →Responses by Tony1: Reply Tag: Reply

30 January 2024

• 21:3021:30, 30 January 2024 diff hist +217 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns Improving summary material at the top of this essay: accuracy, completeness, clarity – and less controversial relevance to the practice of editors in writing, editing, and discussing changes on Wikipedia. Also, a neutral, non-polemical, less weirdly wrong-assed heading: == Divergent themes concerning proper names, in linguistics and philosophy ==
• 20:5820:58, 30 January 2024 diff hist −1 Noun phrase →References: m Removed a comma that I wrongly included.
• 20:5520:55, 30 January 2024 diff hist +339 Noun phrase Adding the fact that an NP can sometimes have another NP as its head, supported by a reference to CGEL; light copyediting of the lead, for completeness, clarity, and accuracy ☺.
• 20:2720:27, 30 January 2024 diff hist +1 Noun →Noun phrases: m Improved my punctuation, because this is an intricate sentence that needs great precision to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity.
• 20:2320:23, 30 January 2024 diff hist +221 Noun →Noun phrases: An addition concerning what can serve as the head of a noun phrase, with a reference to CGEL (where an example is given of an NP as head of an NP); some light copyediting of the paragraph to improve the example (now "The black cat sat near a dear friend of mine", not "on"), and to qualify a statement about the functions of noun phrases (with "usually"); NPs serve in other roles also and can even occur isolated, for example in "Ladies and gentleman, Mr Frank Sinatra!" ☺.

29 January 2024

• 21:1321:13, 29 January 2024 diff hist +1,547 Wikipedia talk:Logical quotation on Wikipedia →Some confusions?: Time to face facts, as opposed to entrenched evidence-proof opinion.
• 07:2707:27, 29 January 2024 diff hist −2 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Linguistic versus philosophy definitions of proper name: m Removed erroneous parentheses.
• 03:0203:02, 29 January 2024 diff hist +753 Wikipedia talk:Proper names and proper nouns →An essay in serious need of repair and improvement: new section Tag: New topic
• 02:5202:52, 29 January 2024 diff hist +922 Wikipedia:Proper names and proper nouns →Linguistic versus philosophy definitions of proper name: Fixed many inaccuracies and infelicities (see the article Proper noun, which justifies every one of these fixes); for just one example, "Turks" is not a proper noun: as the article explains, such words qualify as common nouns despite their being associated with, or even derived from, genuine proper nouns such as "Turkey" or "Türkiye". VASTLY more needs rectifying in this article, but that will do for now – and besides, I'm anon. ☺ Tag: Disambiguation links added