Jump to content

Talk:Differential object marking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition

[edit]

So far I have written everything in this article (including the verification template), but to be honest I'm not really sure if everything I'm saying here is really true. I may have misunderstood the sources I cite. I have reasons to believe that DOM is actually something different from the definition that I gave here, but I lack the understanding to give the correct meaning. If my expectation is true, I can only hope that some more knowledgeable passer-by will be able to correct this error. Fyrius 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that could be helpful here is the addition of more examples from other languages. I know that there's a link to the Finnish page, but it might be nice to add some additional examples in the heading of definition. Furthermore, it might be nice to add some extra sources in the sentence that begins with "In languages where DOM is active,". User:Mollycole 8:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The article titled object (grammar) mentions German as an example. In German, the objects of some prepositions can be either dative or accusative depending on the meaning. This article says it's about objects of verbs. I suspect it can apply either to verbs or to prepositions. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modification

[edit]

I modified the page extensively, I hope is better now. I also add some links. Miguel (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German

[edit]

Is the distinction in German between dative and accusative forms of nouns and pronouns an example of this? In German, as in English, a verb can have both direct and indirect objects, but unlike in English, there are some verbs that have only dative objects and not accusative objects (gehören, helfen, begegnen, folgen,...), and as in English, many verbs can have both (except that in English the form doesn't change; only the word order does).

I see that no one's commented on my nearly one-year-old comment on objects of German prepositions above. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the German case counts. According to the article, DOM is two different kinds of direct objects, but the objects of gehören, helfen, begegnen, folgen etc. are considered indirect objects. And objects of prepositions aren't direct objects either. +Angr 20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per An. If the Spanish distinction btw "a" objects (people) and those lacking it (things) qualifies, is the same true for Russian (where the distinction is included in the noun paradigm)? It looks basically like the same thing, once synthetic, once analytic, doesn't it? Trigaranus (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled onto this page after editing this answer to a question comparing Japanese particles to other languages. These languages also seem to exhibit DOM by having a direct object marker that is used only in certain situations:

  • Hebrew "את" (at) - Only when the direct object is semantically definite.
  • Romanian "pe" - Only used when the direct object is 1) a proper noun; the name of a person or animal 2) a common noun referring to a specific person, generally known to both the speaker and listener 3) a common noun acting as a metaphor for a person 4) a common noun in a construction in which the subject and the direct object are the same noun and they precede the predicate.

— Hippietrail (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew, Romanian and Spanish (and several others) are indeed mentioned as examples of differential object marking in this: Judith Aissen. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21,435-483. You can see a draft copy at her web page (http://people.ucsc.edu/~aissen/). Mcswell (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Differential object marking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the alternative orderings that are not permitted?

[edit]

The current version of the article includes:

”However, when the object is nonspecific, alternative ordering is not permitted: Sakha”

followed, however, by four phrases with the same word orders as in the examples (before the quoted sentences) with the specific objects, and with no marking of any ungrammatical sentences. How is the reader supposed to know which are the “alternatively ordered” expressions that are not permitted?

And what is the string “: Sakha” intended to mean?Redav (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redav: Thank you for bringing this up, well-spotted. "Sakha" is residual text that has become unnecessary with the subsection header. As for the examples, I have added the missing information from the source. –Austronesier (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
The "Bibliography" section, out of place and misnamed, is "External links. Even as "Further reading", 19 links are too many.
Further information: Wikipedia: External links
Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 12 entries, organized into three subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number, and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus needs to determine this. A tag indicates concerns.
However, none is needed for article promotion.
Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.
  • WP:ELDEAD may apply.
  • In some cases ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please also note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Please do not add back more links without consensus. Simple solution to facilitate career maintenance tag. Move links here for discussion.
Moved links:

-- Otr500 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Differential_object_marking&oldid=1298538590"