From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Force Dynamics has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
To-do list for Force Dynamics: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
- Incorporate BrokenSeque's comments on spellings. In most cases (and probably in all), force dynamics should be uncapitalized.
- Sort out the major incompletenesses pointed out by Bishonen:
- The article should be more clear on the status of FD diagrams and situations. It should be clear that FD at the language level represents human conceptualization of the world. Additionally, this means that Talmy himself mixes various levels of description, sometimes leading to confusion about what a FD diagram in a certain case is meant to represent exactly. The issue is here that of a given situation, you can draw sort of a 'factual' FD diagram (based on the 'bare facts' of the situation), and you can draw a 'conceptual' FD diagram, representing the way human language talks about this situation — the two need not be different, but they may well be.
- The article should be clear on how to assign the Agonist/Antagonist roles.
- The paragraph about representational devices needs to be a little less abstract. Maybe give an example.
Last update: — mark ✎ 09:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
|
[edit] Capitalization?
This may be a terribly dumb question, but the title of this article is "Force Dynamics". Is there a particular reason why the title is not "Force dynamics"? I see that most references on Google have double capitalization, but I was wondering for my own edification. — Scm83x hook 'em 07:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
