Talk:Verb

Reflexive Verbs

No mention in this article - there is a Wikipedia page on them - and no link for the main verb page. Grammar is outside my area - but this obviously is missing and someone capable needs to work it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition of verb

Hi all. It seems that the definition of verb is controversial, and different people use it to mean different things. I think it would be good to adress this at the start of the article. For example, "In traditional grammar [or whatever the correct term for that is], a verb is defined as a word that conveys an action, an occurrence, or a state of being. In current linguistics scholarship, the definition of verb depends on the theoretical background of the researcher. Most linguists agree that verbs generally conform to X criteria. However, the details vary. According to [some popular linguistics theory], a verb is [x]. According to [some other popular linguistics theory], a verb is [x]. Other theories define verbs in yet other ways. These definitions generally agree that [prototypical verb examples] count as verbs. However, they differ on how they classify less prototypical verbs, such as [examples]. " JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

lousy article on verbs - biased towards english and inaccurately cites other languages

how is this article on verbs rated important as it is badly written / edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.133.254 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Voice category is anglocentric

The description of what voice is, isn‘t a linguitic definition but the explanation that’s given to middle school english learners. Lawamoli (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Include a redirection to the article on grammatical voice and rework the voice category, as the current description of what voice is is highly inaccurate and anglocentric. Lawamoli (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The word “case” creates ambiguity in the given context

The current text contains:

”If the verbal expression of modality involves inflection, we have the special case of mood”

Since “case” can refer to a particular form of a noun, I wonder if - here, in the context of verbs - using a different word, perhaps “category” would help to disambiguate the text.86.90.202.241 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede woes and Non-finite forms section

The current lede, as "A verb (from Latin verbum 'word') is a word (part of speech) that in syntax generally conveys an action", is equivocal since participles and gerunds convey action but aren't verbs. I'd offer a remedy from my own lexicon, but that definition runs afoul of the WP:refers to guidance.

The Non-finite forms section contains wholesale gibberish from the misguided attempt to denote a present participle as "active" (which links to active voice), and a past participle as "passive" (which links to passive voice). Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

English

"In English, three tenses exist" -- This is very controversial. Many linguists hold that English has two tenses, some think it has three, some say more more than three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.176.77 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Origin from Latin

@Femke I reverted your change here, on the basis that the origin of "verb" as the Latin word for "word" seems relevant and interesting. I think it's on balance better to mention this than not to mention it. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence though. As an analogous example, Noun § History, the first section of that article, discusses the way noun comes from a word for "name". I think it would be okay to do something similar here; we could mention that the usage in Latin to mean "verb" was (per Wiktionary) influenced by the similar use of Ancient Greek ῥῆμα ("word", "verb"). Or we could move the note about the origin of verb out of the first sentence to its own later sentence in the lead here. –jacobolus (t) 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As the Latin already meant verb, as well as word, I think the etymology isn't that interesting. I'm happy to compromise and put it elsewhere in the lead with a citation however. The first sentence is already quite long with all the examples. MOS:LEADCLUTTER discourages adding explanations in parentheses in the first sentence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Having some parenthetical explanations is okay; we should just avoid "describing everything notable about the subject" in the first sentence. Like everything else, we can try to strike a balance. Again, from what I understand the Latin verb meant "word", and was then adopted to mean "verb" as technical jargon in the context of grammar by Latin translators/adapters of Greek works about grammar, which had used the Greek word for "word" in the same context. If we want to spell this out in more detail (later in the lead or in a dedicated section) that would be fine. Feel free to take a crack at moving the brief note saying that verb was Latin for "word" to a separate sentence if you want to. –jacobolus (t) 07:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: in case you hadn't watchlisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Mike Trout

@Feeglgeef we really need to discuss this change otherwise this will go back and forth until the end of time. Mike Trout is a center fielder is both a current and valid example. Why are you changing something that has not only been there for years, but is also still a current example? If Mike Trout had retired or changed positions then I would understand, but the example is still valid and no one has had a problem in the past, so why change it now? TnT Gordon (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Because it will be wrong eventually, which will be wrong for mirror and fork sites that do not update. See WP:MIRROR. If you want to move Mike Trout to the past tense example you are welcome to. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Here, I implemented a compromise solution on the page. Is this ok with you? Feeglgeef (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The compromise itself is fine, I just feel like you've needlessly changed something that was a valid example, that no one had changed or had a problem with for years and was actually a fun little inclusion for those who watch baseball. The past tense is now almost too niche because fewer people would know this fact in comparison to those who would have known both Obama becoming President in 2009 and Mike Trout being a center fielder. You've essentially come in after years of it being there and fixed something that wasn't broke, it would have just been replaced with someone else once he retires/changes positions. TnT Gordon (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOT, there are different places on the internet for something like this. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Literally nothing I have said OR anything related to the Mike Trout discourse is contained here. In fact, you have caused it to become a battleground because one person has decided something that has been fine for years is no longer fine, and refusing to accept that others are trying to change it back. You are the problem here, not us changing it back. TnT Gordon (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)