Talk:Linguistic modality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] merge
The article Grammatical modality should be incorporated into this article. The reason is because some linguists make a distinction between semantic modality (a.k.a. sentence modality) and morphosyntactic modality (a.k.a. verbal modality). Grammatical is often used to mean morphosyntactic. Using linguistic modality, we can discuss both of these together. This seems better to me, especially because the articles are not very accurate or clear. – ishwar (speak) 16:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Looked at the link for the discussion on grammar: modality and it is really not clear how modality is achieved. There are any number of theories about language and grammar that think it is achieved in different or similar ways: Spech Act Theory, Systemic Grammar and Functional Grammar are three that come to mind. Malangthon 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] previous discussion
see: Talk:Grammatical modality
[edit] Mood versus modality
There are articles for Grammatical mood (basically a list of moods with brief explanations), Linguistic modality, and List of grammatical moods. There seems to be some redundancy here, but I'm not sure what should be merged into what... FilipeS 12:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Qualify the 'definitions' given?
Kiefer's quote is a bit misleading. Firstly, I don't think modal claims always discuss ways THIS world might be, because there is (might be?) some possible world that contains properties which necessarily do not exist in the actual world. Second, if "conceivability" means kripkean "coherent conceivability," the friends of hill-mclaughlin 'type B materialism' (and presumably others) take it as a crucial premise of their argument that conceivability does not imply possibility. So, maybe some qualifications should be added, presumably by someone more qualified than myself.
Btbaron 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)LG
[edit] expert attention needed
The subject is not defined precisely, and "mood" and "modality" and "modals" are happily confused (I concede that this is also the case in much of the literature). Furthermore, the article is anglo-centric, which is nice for modal verbs, but less so for mood. It also leads to the blurring of semantic categories (modality) and their morphosyntactic expression(s) (mood, modal verbs). The article needs more text and less lists. Maybe the list could go some other articles, like List of moods or sth like that Jasy jatere 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] some edits
I've tried made the article more accessible to a more general audience by providing a broader view of the subject. I've also tried to endow the article with a linguistic perspective, although as you guys have noted, its not so easy (maybe impossible?) to cleanly separate the linguistic parts. The cumbersome typology of moods, which was (anyhow) redundant with the article on moods, is gone, replaced by what I think is a useable high-level view of two broad distinctions in modality: epistemic and deontic. Again, my intent was to write for a general audience, so there are no doubt some parts which nitpicking linguists (like myself) may have quibbles with. I've also included some examples (English-only, sorry - will try to include some from other languages later). More updates to come. joo-yoon (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
