351
edits
Talk:kepeken e: Difference between revisions
→"kepeken e" is uncommon?
Citrons.xyz (talk | contribs) (I think "kepeken e" is valid.) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 31:
the article itself cites a source which still teaches the construction. I would hardly call it confusing or obscure. [[User:Citrons.xyz|Citrons.xyz]] ([[User talk:Citrons.xyz|talk]]) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:I agree. I’ve always used kepeken e, and when reading this talk page I was flabbergasted by how rare people say it is used. [[User:Enky|Enky]] ([[User talk:Enky|talk]]) 20:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
:Hm, ok, so 2 things.
:1. I agree that sentence should not stay as it is in the article. "but it is not clear what such a construction means, nor whether it should be used" - best case this is ''weird'' to read
:'''''However,'''''
:2. when the article talks about an uncommon construction it does '''not''' talk about {{tp|kepeken e}}, but transitive prepositional phrases. One of the flaws of this article (see other parts of this talk page) is actually that the article isn't able to say enough about how {{tp|kepeken e}} is used in practice. [[User:Jan Ke Tami|Jan Ke Tami]] ([[User talk:Jan Ke Tami|talk]]) 09:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed: this should have a more careful historical analysis, since it seems that in early speakers (jan Nikita, jan Pije), kepeken was analyzed primarily as a transitive verb, i.e. [[e]] was always used whenever [[kepeken]] alone was the head of a sentence. I'd like to explore this in more detail, but I don't immediately have time for it right now. :'( [[User:JPeton|JPeton]] ([[User talk:JPeton|talk]]) 09:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||