Talk:Converb

Coverb

Topic moved back to Talk:Coverb after split. --Latebird (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Coverbs in Swiss German???

Topic moved back to Talk:Coverb after split. --Latebird (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Phenomenon

What is described in this Article is a coverb or serial verb construction (two quite similar phenomenons). a converb is something else (in english somethin like the 'going to' constructions e.g.)--Meikal 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though serial verb constructions differ somewhat typologically from coverb constructions. I'm gonna try to work on this. It's difficult though, because English doesn't have very coverbs, nor anything that resembles them. They are a part of speech particular to a the far northern australian languages, and perhaps some others. Turkish has coverbs by memory. I'll look into this at some point. Aidhoss 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I suggest this entire article be moved to converb and coverb gets started afresh. Can anyone tell me the protocol for suggesting a move? Aidhoss 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Coverbs and converbs are two rather different phenomena after all. But I have no clue how to do it either. I'll maybe have a look at the first part of the article in order to adapt it to CONVERBS. A few examples from Japanese, Mongolian and maybe Korean might be helpful as well. G Purevdorj 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G Purevdorj (talk • contribs)

Since Purevdorj asked me for help, I've done the mechanical part of the split, which should be correct. The current introduction of Coverb is a rough translation from de:Koverb. Since I'm not a linguist, please check the result carefully to make sure that I didn't introduce any gross factual errors. I also notice that the article here still contains two instances of the term "Coverb" in the text, which may or may not be correct. --Latebird (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

I've just added some data that should add to the information about converbs, but on the other hand, it also unbalances the article. I intend to fix this, but I shall not have access to the literature for almost two more weeks. Then, there are other things to do for me as well, thus it might take me (at the longest) until the mid of February to do so. Anyone else who'd like to present and explain some examples from Haspelmath and König would be welcome, of course. I also intend to use Martin on Korean and Japanese, Levin on Korean and Mattissen-Piaszenski on Japanese.

Hopefully, Aidhoss could do something similar for "coverbs" as my knowledge on this subject is not that good. G Purevdorj 13:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting tag

I just deleted a tag that claimed that this article doesn't have sufficient inner citations. Now while page numbers may be missing, all material taken from secondary sources appears indeed to be attributed to these. A major part of the article is made up by an example from Mongolian which I had taken from some non-scientific internet source and commented upon to illustrate some points that are very well known in the field and could with a multitude of citations and examples be worked into this article as well. But it couldn't be presented with the same ease. On the other hand, a statement as basic as the one given here can hardly ever considered "original research" as there is nothing original or new about it. Of course, it would be easy to name just some book that treats -magc and -z (which should also hold for Ramstedt 1903) and reference to it. It would be about as meaningful as confirming that "I know it" is a sentence of English by referencing to some grammar of English.

There might be an additional point of relevance which is that the only source that really contrasts to the understanding of converbs from philology is Haspelmath, not even König. And of course, 1995 is not the last year with respect to research on converbs.

G Purevdorj (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)