Hi, Bruce

I should have been clearer. It was the list, rather than the definition, that I was referring to.

On 2010-04-12, at 9:28 AM, Bruce wrote:

> Brett,
> The page you direct us to was just changed last month to define a preposition by its semantics.  This current definition seems to have the advantage of going across many languages, but it ignores the syntactic patterning that is traditionally at the heart of the part-of-speech definition.  For example, many of the adverbs listed do not take objects (complements), unless their morphological structure is taken to be part of the "syntactic" definition.  Maybe this "simple wiktionary" chooses not to pay attention to traditional syntax because of its multiple language stance.  Are there any philosophical guidelines there?  


Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/