Linguistics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

(First of two untitled discussion topics: s/b "Keep?")

Is this something someone is willing to save? Jwrosenzweig 00:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stub-a-delia, baby!

(Second of two untitled discussion topics: s/b e.g. "My Own Private English Grammar")

What about does/do? They are primarily verbs, but they are question words.

Do you know what time it is? (What time is it?)

Does he have a clue? (Is he clueless)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.147.34 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not in the least. Those words are forms of the English word do, a word that has become a mandatory auxiliary in many interrogative sentences in modern (but not middle) English -- those not having auxiliary words or forms of be. It is possible to answer the question

"Does a frog swim in a lake?"

with

"Yes, a frog does swim in a lake"

more for emphasis than anything else, as well as

"Yes, a frog swims in the lake",

or even

"Yes, it does!"

Forms of do are verbs in their own right and not interrogatives themselves.

Medieval English and even early-modern English (Shakespeare) at times simply inverts noun and verb from SVO to VSO as in most European languages, although modern French favors the expression est-ce que before what would otherwise be a declarative sentence.
--Pbrower2a (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should Whither be added? Tabletop (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolescent, much like "whence" and "wherefore" as interrogatives. Include them at your risk.Pbrower2a (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian languages seem to be getting a bit too much attention, plus the descriptions themselves are badly worded. Could we get some examples from a more diverse language set? 82.4.15.210 (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions:

First, should "whether" be there? It is not an interrogative word, it is a subordinating conjunction which introduces complement clauses.

Second, isn't this page too "English-oriented"? It is missing the semantic category showing "amount" or "quantity". What happens is that, in English language, there is no single word for that. English decomposes it in "how many" or "how much" but there are several languages (for instance, romance languages) that have a specific word for that: quanto, cuanto, combien, etc.

213.63.94.16 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German, Latin (more than modern Romance languages), and Esperanto suggest themselves. But how about broadening the scope to include other languages, not all of PIE origin? We need not be "English-language chauvinists" by default. Latin is preferable to any of its derivatives because it shows fewer sound changes than do its descendants and better than Classical Greek because of the complex treatment of Proto-Indo-European *kw in Greek. I understand that Lithuanian is arguably the most conservative PIE language and would be particularly relevant. Sanskrit would possibly be interesting.

Some of the German forms are obvious cognates of English forms (welcher/which); some aren't (wo/where; wer/who); some imply different rules of construction (warum/why).

Stability and antiquity of the words in language is so strong that the interrogative why in English preserves perhaps the only relic of a long-lost instrumental case. The "h" in how was apparently a "wh"-like sound before it transformed regularly into "h" before an Old English "u". Pbrower2a (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the notation here. Is it possible to use standard phonetic symbols? Also a bit confused by the comment about scottish and american dialects using [M] instead of [W]. Doric (east Scottish dialect) speakers use "F" in place of W e.g. "fit" "far" "fan" etc. In Gaelic (which eastern Scots probably never spoke) F is written as "MH". Is this the reason for this muddle? Do any Americans actually pronounce interrogatives like this? Or replace W with M?Pignut (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(The English word whether has a similar function, but only in indirect questions; and Multicultural London English may use "innit", even in the absence of the pronoun "it".) Such particles contrast with other interrogative words, which form what are called wh-questions rather than yes–no questions." This is just a non-standard version of any "tag question" eg You're going to do it, aren't you?

Ever forms still include "so" for emphasis eg whatever vs whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.182.53 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, both Arabic and Spanish should be treated in the entry, for they're major languages. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a nice idea, mentioning MLE. However, the use of "innit" is never as an interrogative particle. It's used at the end of sentences (or by itself) for emphasis^[1][2]. So, not much unlike a tag question. An interrogative particle turns a statement into a question, which in this case would mean that the sentence "This book is big." would turn into "This book is big, innit?" and would mean the same as "Is this book big?" which is obviously ridiculous - a more accurate synonymous way of phrasing it would be "This book is big, isn't it?" which is ultimately the origin of the contraction anyway. Now, though the two do seem similar, the difference is that the party asking the question already knows the answer beforehand if they use "innit" - so not an interrogative particle.

To sum up - the word "innit" is not an interrogative particle in any way - one does not use it to transform statements into yes/no questions. I find it should be removed from the introduction.

84.81.40.9 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg to differ, if pronounced as having a rising tone throughout, or as [ɪnɪ̌ʔ], it does indeed mark a question. 2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:34 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list at the top lists these separately, but wouldn't it make more sense to list them as one word like "who/whom"? Putting them as separate entries in a list implies they're as distinct as who vs. what vs. why etc. when really whom is just the objective case inflection of who. Cyllel (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]