Talk:Verb phrase ellipsis

Why politics?

Do we really need politics in a grammar article? The Romney voting example in the first paragraph is a bit too obviously connected to recent current events for me to be comfortable with it, it's jarring, and a bit partisan. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The example is neutral. It makes no claims about whether voting for Romney was a good or bad thing. In my view, the effort is better spent elsewhere, for instance improving punctuation. Note further that I think some readers might appreciate examples that refer to real events, since that makes them somehow more real. In the scheme things, this is minor issue that is hardly worth struggling about. If others dislike the mentioning of "Romney", I will concede the issue. In my view though, some readers need to grow a skin. My response here is motivated by my dislike for oversensitivity in these areas. I like content, not an overemphasis on political correctness. --Tjo3ya (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then find another example that isn't a politician. Or someone so far back in history no one is likely to care. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's distracting. One doesn't expect references to current events in the lead of grammar articles. Since the name is so recognizable, it pulls one up short, distracting from the content being presented. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it to "She will sell sea shells". This message is not paid for by Royal Dutch Shell. I'm talking generic shells, by any seashore, not just the national ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent

The recent edits to this article suggest work by students. I am concerned by this work because undergraduate students lack the background knowledge to edit Wikipedia articles on syntax in an insightful manner. They tend to focus too much on the one specific type of syntax they have learned in the one class on syntax they have taken. They lack exposure to the broader field. What ends up occurring is that they add too much theory specific information, which makes the articles overly dense and inaccessible to a general Wikipedia audience. Concerning this specific article, breaking up the introduction as they have now done by adding an example separated off in a separate lines is aesthetically unpleasant. Such examples appear right below in the first section. A single example in the running text of the paragraph is more appropriate. In any case, as the work progresses, I will likely have many concerns that I will air here. I hope the students do not ignore my concerns. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tjo3ya:It might be useful to focus on article content rather than the presumed occupation of editors and their supposed credentials or breadth of exposure/knowledge. See ad hominem. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Development new content (April 2021)

We are planning to add sections on VP ellipsis in Japanese and Mandarin. We will also be creating a new subsection on how VP ellipsis interacts with language acquisition. Any & all suggestions about how to proceed would be much appreciated. Content development on language acquisition will take place in the sandbox, and then be transferred to the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:73D8:1400:8547:3C27:9E0C:A183 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)