Talk:Traditional grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is "descriptive linguist" propaganda. It assumes, with unconcealed bias, that the majority opinion in this field is the correct interpretation; for example, modern linguistics has exposed the limitations of traditional grammar, and [contempary linguistics is] intended to apply to a much broader range of languages; compare this to, Traditional grammar attempts... to analyse and elucidate the constituents of any given well-formed sentence. (my emphasis)

This article is full of moralising and peremptory statements on a controversial issue. There are clear violations of WP:NPOV. Please re-write this article and amend the indulgent, self-gratifying language. It might be appropriate for linguistics lectures, but not for a reputable encyclopedia intended for a broader audience. Rintrah 08:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the article's first sentence seems to introduce an article on the term "traditional grammar", but the rest of the article seems instead to be an article on the concept that term supposedly identifies. I think the solution here is to adjust the entire article to be about the term, how it's used, what it covers, and so on. The article can then be frank about the fact that the term is usually used by linguists to refer to the moronic prescriptive grammar often taught in schools. How does that sound? —Ruakh_TALK 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you might not be the best choice for the rewrite if that's your attitude. Tsunomaru 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)