Jump to content

Talk:Inanimate whose/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Inanimate whose
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 20 July 2017 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


What a brilliant topic. I can't pass up the chance to review this, though my comments may come in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "pronoun hwæt ('what')" Why the single quotes? Is there something the the MOS about this?
    SMcCandlish did that. He's pushed to have that included in the MoS, and it now says "Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms usually take single quotes". I disagree with it, and voiced that objection with examples here. I'm not aware of where a consensus was formed to include this in the MoS, and would prefer he didn't unilaterally change an established style. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:SINGLE has said linguistic glosses go in single quotes since 2015 [1], after repeated discussions in which there was a preponderance of evidence of this usage being standardized in the field, and little opposition but "IDONTLIKEIT" and "IDONTKNOWIT" arguments. It's been the practice in linguistic materials, on both sides of the Atlantic, and in multiple languages, for generations. It's a useful one, distinguishing glosses from examples and quotations using double quotation marks.

    If someone disagrees that MoS should say this, they can open yet another discussion about it at WT:MOS. We don't resist guidelines we personally quibble with by writing non-compliant material or opposing others editing it to be compliant. No one is ever going to personally be a fan of every single line-item in MoS. It's our built-by-years-of-compromise house style, and we deal with it. PS: The style has also long been built into our language templates, e.g. {{lang-de}}. MoS including it was not a "new change", it was updating the guideline to account for actual practice, on and off WP.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The first recorded instance of inanimate whose occurs in 1479" Worth quoting?
    It appears to be somewhere in one of these letters, but it's not quoted and I'm not having luck finding it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attested usage increased from the Elizabethan era onward, appearing repeatedly" Attested usage didn't appear repeatedly; the inanimate whose did.
    That's what I thought. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy fix: "...onward, with the style appearing...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of what was referred to" Would "of that which was referred to" be preferable?
  • "wīf ('wife') was neuter and referred to with the pronoun hit ('it'), and wīfmann ('woman')" Again with the single quotes- I'm not saying it's wrong, but I thought it worth flagging
    MOS:SINGLE  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some dialects, thats has developed as a colloquial genitive relative pronoun for non-personal antecedents" Could you perhaps provide some examples of the dialects in which this is common?
    • I'm not having any luck here ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      It's unlikely to be specific dialects; rather, it's a low-register usage, of informal speech. We'd need a reliable source to tie it to a particular region, and even then there may be an error of omission (e.g., a source saying it's common in Texas or whatever isn't a source that it's not use in Massachusetts or South Africa). Barring more sources on it, we're probably saying all we can about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • grammarian is a dablink
  • "The English James Buchanan in his Regular English syntax of 1767" Could this be massaged a little?
    I thought that one looked funny, too, but "James Buchanan, of England, in his" wasn't any better. Maybe "Writing in England in 1767, James"? The concept of "British" had not really arisen yet, so we shouldn't use an anachronism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry Bradley in the Oxford English Dictionary asserted "usually replaced by of which, except where the latter would produce an intolerably clumsy form"." "...asserted that the inanimate whose is..." or "...asserted that the inanimate whose should "usually" be...", perhaps?
  • "he cited a number of cases of its use and of those who prescribe against it and their rationales, and concluded" I'm struggling with this sentence.
    "he cited a number of cases of its use, and discussed the rationales of those who prescribe against it. He concluded"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas Lounsbury asserted the inanimate" that?
  • "found that respondents considered it disputable" It's not completely obvious to me what this means; especially given your "however" in the following line.
    "found that respondents to the survey considered the prohibition disputable"? The "However" is marker of transition, between the two preceding sentences about opinion in favor of i-whose, to discussion of actual [1970s] practice to enforce against it. Without something like that, the 1970s sentence is a confusing non sequitur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It asserts that "notion that whose may not properly be used of anything except persons is a superstition" and such use is "entirely standard as an alternative to of which in all varieties of discourse"." How about "It asserts that the "notion that whose may not properly be used of anything except persons is a superstition" and that such use is "entirely standard as an alternative to of which in all varieties of discourse"."?
  • "states the construction is" that?
  • I feel the lead could better reflect what appears to be the story being told in the final section; once upon a time, people didn't like it, but now, style guides are open to it and even claim that its unacceptability is a myth.
  • Also, I think it might be nice to lead (in place of a picture) with a passage from Shakespeare or similar in which it is used; or even a photo of it appearing on a page (I know that's use in some other more "literary" articles).

That's what jumps out at me on a first read-through. Great topic and article. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inanimate_whose/GA1&oldid=791404827"