Talk:Inverse copular constructions
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inverse copular constructions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Possible revisions
[edit]This is an interesting article. In particular, I'm enthused by the statement that inverse copular constructions present a challenge to the dogmatic binary subject-predicate division of the clause. It looks like someone named Semmelweiss originally drafted this article. Are you out there Semmelweiss? Or is anyone out there who knows who Semmelweiss is? I'd very much like to have an exchange with that person.
Concerning this article in particular, I may undertake to revise it. It has something important to say and I think that better organization with more examples that are presented in a clear way will make the content more accessible. --Tjo3ya (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
major overhaul needed
[edit]The linguistic gist of this article is hardly conveys what an inverse copular construction entails. An ICC involves a subject and predicate from disparate lexical categories. So, an example like "Fred is the plumber" versus "The plumber is Fred" is ridiculous as the sentences are semantically equivalent. A true ICC requires examples like "Fred (N) is here (ADV)" versus "Here (ADV) is Fred," or "Gertrude (N) is sick (ADJ)" versus "Sick (ADJ) is (Gertrude)." It also covers examples like "Where (ADV) is Waldo (N)" versus "Waldo (N) is where (ADV)?"
Also, this article is rife with WP:EDITORIALIZING like, "Inverse copular constructions are intriguing" and "the distinction between subject and predicative expression [is] difficult to maintain." The latter quote may be less editorializing and more a matter of the contributor's own misunderstanding of what an ICC is. As for me, it's not that I'm too lazy to fix this article. Instead, I simply stand against expounding linguistic analyses that rest on antiquated theoretical ground (I.e. the notions underlying "copula" are full of foundational mincemeat.) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)