Talk:Pro-verb
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
Elision
[edit]This article is about gapping, not pro-verbs, until the very end referring to "do so." Pronouns replace noun phrases, not nouns. Almost every page on the internet claims that pronouns replace nouns and then immediately gives examples of pronouns replacing noun phrases.--gjb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.96.184 (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, elision does not appear to be a legit form of a pro-verb. Since the text is very old, I will add a citation request first. If cites will come, great. If not, I am planning to delete most of the current "In English" section, replacing it with discussions of standard examples of "Mary bathes. She does it at home" (there are plenty of sources for that). Викидим (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ruakh: Викидим (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping! Two of the references on this page are freely accessible (namely https://web.archive.org/web/20220121202726/https://glossary.sil.org/term/pro-verb and https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/what-is-a-pro-verb-definition-how-to-use), and they both say that "do" is a pro-verb. Neither suggests that "do it" is a pro-verb. The latter reference (Merriam-Webster) ties pro-verbs quite directly to gapping/elision, and also gives examples with other auxiliary verbs such as "can" (though it doesn't explicitly call these pro-verbs, saying instead that they "function similarly to the pro-verb do"). Do you know of any references that suggest that pro-verbs and gapping/elision are mutually exclusive concepts? —RuakhTALK 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you that MW is unclear on the subject. It starts with pro-nouns and finishes with pro-forms, without clearly describing pro-verbs as such (except for do), discussing a clear not-pro-verbs like there. Still, do is mentioned along with other auxiliary verbs in a list of (be, have, can, and will), so it looks like you are right, and one can argue that can is also a pro-verb. The definition is clearly fluid (as stated in our article already), the sources that I have added appear to discuss the discourse (one of them specifically targets do it). I am going to add a link to Auxiliary verb to the text. Викидим (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping! Two of the references on this page are freely accessible (namely https://web.archive.org/web/20220121202726/https://glossary.sil.org/term/pro-verb and https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/what-is-a-pro-verb-definition-how-to-use), and they both say that "do" is a pro-verb. Neither suggests that "do it" is a pro-verb. The latter reference (Merriam-Webster) ties pro-verbs quite directly to gapping/elision, and also gives examples with other auxiliary verbs such as "can" (though it doesn't explicitly call these pro-verbs, saying instead that they "function similarly to the pro-verb do"). Do you know of any references that suggest that pro-verbs and gapping/elision are mutually exclusive concepts? —RuakhTALK 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)