Talk:Function word

.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:800F:4CAB:7E04:5D42:E5BB:FDC8 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(Early miscellania)

(Title casing)

How can the header be changed to "Function word"?Dieter Simon 00:35 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Done. :-) (see "how to move a page" in the FAQ) -- Tarquin 10:11 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tarquin. Have perused and "digested" the article. --Dieter Simon 23:26 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

(Title suitability)

Why does Content word redirect here, Particularly considering the first paragraph, stating content word and function word to be opposites? Surely there is more to the definition of content words than simply "not a function word" PRB 11:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit more detail; there's not much more to say. A separate "content word" page would be little more than a dictionary definition. Maybe the page should be renamed "function word and content word" Joestynes 03:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Conjuctions & inflection)

Changed "Conjunction - uninflected" to "Conjunction - uninflected in English", as conjunctions are inflected in Classical Arabic.88.212.123.106 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Using nonsense syllables as examples for content words

Editor Tangthm has used an interesting method of showing the difference between function words and content words, using nonsense syllable words to show up the various parts that constitute a sentence. There is, however, one proviso I have to make, namely that of this being an encyclopaedia for readers who want to find out what function/content words are, but might find the method somewhat confusing without at least some introductory definition. You are not entering a discourse with a like-minded peer group of linguists but people who might not have heard of the various specialised terms used in this article, after all that is why they are consulting Wikipedia in first place. I have entered some clues as to what the intention of the examples were. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The nonsense words give a fantastic explanation of what function words are. The meaning is quite clear when comparing the two sentences and then reading the following paragraph.

The problem is that they may constitute original research. However, I want them to stay so badly that I'm not going to remove them. If someone can find a source that uses this type of explanation, that would be the best solution. TWCarlson (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with the example is that sentence #1 is supposed to be more intelligible than sentence #2. For me, that's not even close to being true. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

They're not even sentences. Sentences are composed of (phrases, which are composed of) words. Collocations of nonsense syllables are not words, so while the given strings of characters may bear some resemblance to sentences, they are not sentences at all.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's a good explanation. Yep, it was first created by User:Tangthm with a simple, inline example on 18:20, 6 October 2010 and modified multiple times later that day until it reached nearly its current form. Yep, it can hardly be clearer that this is original research. So sadly, it has to go. (It should not have been allowed to remain for four years). If the example is that good, see if you can forward it to a linguist (try Linguistlist) or grammarian and get it published, then you can put it back in, and reference the published source. If not, well, it's very clear what policies on original research are, and we have to uphold them. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Need to overhaul the whole article?

"Each function word ... may indicate the speaker's mental model as to what is being said." Gobbledygook to me, I'm afraid; could someone who understands the point please reword that sentence? The article's lack of adequate references is both chronic and concerning. Nothing gives ammunition to Wikipedia's critics as much as a dearth of verifiable sources, especially regarding academic material. The style is below par in parts, but rash overhauling of most or all of an article will lead to a spate of reverting by previous editors with a proprietorial bent unless the Talk discussion has adequately paved the way. Nevertheless, an authentic 'encyclopaedic style' imposed by a suitably competent editor, with quoted sources, will be necessary sooner or later if the cautionary flags at the top of the article are finally to go. Humboles (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lexical words

Lexical words are the words that possess semantic meaning of the sentence in which they occur. Ex: mouse, traffic light,etc. 49.244.197.70 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)