Talk:Relational noun

Don't understand this[edit]

Hi. I don't understand this:

3sPOSS-on

Is this some sort of linguistic shorthand?? It would help the article if it were explained in more straightforward terms. Thanks, Madman 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a linguistic short hand explaning(glossing) the two morphemes of which the word ipan consist. it means "third person singular possessor-on" I do not know how to provide a gloss that is meaningful and do not use linguistic terminology. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an anonymous user here, adding to this discussion. I'm not a linguist, but I'm an intelligent, literate English speaker who has gone to grad school and who has studied German and Latin, yet I can't understand the definition or description given here AT ALL.

It seems to me that such articles should NOT be aimed at an intended audience of professional linguists, but rather to the intelligent layman. I can't imagine that anyone but a professional linguist could understand this article, and he or she probably already KNOWS this, so why bother writing for that audience here? Moreover, a professional linguist probably also has immediate access to half a dozen books that would explain such things; Wikipedia is obviously going to be used by people who DON'T have immediate access to such things.

In short, this article needs to be re-written in a much fuller, longer, and CLEARER style.64.149.179.17 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is much clearer now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.13.95 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from postpositions?[edit]

It seems from the example, that "-pan" in itself can't exist, but is rather a morphological entity. So how is this different from a postposition and why is it classified as a noun when its function and morphological traits suggest otherwise?

Because that is exactly not the case. It is treated exactly as a noun in regards to its syntactical and morphological properties - except that it cannot appear in an unpossessed form (inalienably possessed nouns also cannot appear unpossessed). They are not postpositions because they are not affixes but rather nominal roots. This is however in no way explained with sufficient clarity in the article as it is now. I will see what I can do about it shortly. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we bold the examples?[edit]

It's not clear which words are the relational nouns in those examples. --Daviddwd (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]