Talk:Generative grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to theoretical linguistics and theories of language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Obsolete
- Should it not be mentioned that this is an obsolete theory?
- i don't know about other fields but this is still relevant in computer science
- This is still a relevant theory in the basic study of linguistics.
- it is still a releant theory and not a dead one although popularity has declined. it shold not be merged with gen. ling.
It is far from "obsolete", though there is much argument about its meaning in linguistics. Rainwarrior 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at ALL obsolete. We're still actively working and researching in this paradigm!!! AndrewCarnie
[edit] Merge?
- Looks like two article about the same subject. Merge Kerowyn 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- JA: Keep separate. These are two distinct concepts. A generative grammar is a technical concept that originated within the field of study called generative linguistics, but it is often used in other fields, such as computer science, and it is also used to some perhaps modified extent in branches of or perspectives on linguistics that would not be described as generative linguistics by their participants. Also, its full development as a subtopic within any other article would eventually need to be broken out as a technical subsidiary, anyway. Jon Awbrey 13:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Don't merge. Generative grammar is used widely outside of linguistics. Rainwarrior 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's been a few months and we seem to have more against than for. Mostly it seems people are uninterested in comment. Anyhow, I've decided to remove the merge suggestion. Rainwarrior 07:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revert of 62.192.140.219's changes
On July 9th, 2006, 62.192.140.219 made changes to this page which, even if new information was added (it is difficult to tell), removed several pieces of useful information, pictures, wiki links, and formatting; furthermore, it was written in a very poor style (it reads like an undergraduate essay). I have reverted this edit. - Rainwarrior 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Huh?
It's not that I don't think that there may be some candles of truth in this article's description of the theory presented, BUT for the most part the page is written in such a fashion that it sounds like a lot of BS masquerading as intelligent discourse -- sort of what you would present to a college professor in an oral exam if you wanted him to think you knew what you were talking about -- but really didn't cause instead of studying you had stayed up too late partying the evening before.Fungible 09:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
