Category talk:ami:Action

RFC discussion: December 2021–November 2023
This category should be reorganized or renamed in some way but I'm not sure how or into what. Ffffrr (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like a solely grammatical category, probably covering some subset of Category:Amis verbs. There's no reason to have this as a topical category. might be able to explain the rationale for this category, but they haven't edited here for over a year. I notice that most, but not all of the members in Category:Amis verbs are in this category- it might be possible to figure out the reason behind the category by comparing the non-overlapping words to the rest. The obvious guess is that the these are verbs that describe actions ( as opposed to  or ) verbs. Perhaps  might be able to help. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In this dissertation (Wu 2006), "action verbs" are mentioned as the complement of "state verbs", so yes, the term pretty much refers to the same thing as "dynamic verbs". I don't think this is a very useful category, as it does not fully predict the basic morphological properties of a verb in Amis (including lexicographically important information like the choice of the actor voice prefix which can be mi- or ma-). Also, the dictionary that is cited (new link: https://e-dictionary.ilrdf.org.tw/ami/search.htm) does not use the label "action verb", see e.g., which is categorized as "Action" here, but not – as far as I can see – in the e-dictionary entry: https://e-dictionary.ilrdf.org.tw/ami/terms/254601.htm.
 * Without hard criteria (About Amis is still blank), the category is hard to maintain (e.g. why is included, but not ). –Austronesier (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After almost 2 years since the last comment in the RFD discussion or here, I've removed it from all entries and deleted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2021–November 2023
The concept behind this topical category is obviously fundamentally flawed: the only explanatory text is the sentence: "Verb words about action in the Amis language of Taiwan", but these aren't verbs on the subject of "action", but members of some kind of class of verbs referring to actions as opposed to states.

This has been posted on Requests for cleanup, but it looks to me like we would have to know more about both the concept behind the category and about the language in question to have any hope of making a real category out of it. As it is, this is the ad hoc creation of one person, and could very easily be based on a misinterpretation of the grammar of a language they don't speak.

As for preserving the information it contains, there's very little benefit to being able to see that certain terms are believed to be related to each other for some reason we don't fully understand, and there's no way to maintain the category. Are the verbs that aren't in the category excluded because they don't belong there, or is it just a matter of what the category creator got around to before they stopped editing? If someone adds a new Amis verb entry, does it belong to the category or doesn't it? Pinging as category creator, and  as participants in the RFC discussion.Chuck Entz (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I see the category as mostly unnecessary, if it cannot be cleaned up then I guess it should be deleted then. If all Amis verbs were included then that would be redundant as https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Amis_verbs already does that. Ffffrr (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I might change my mind if we could still get input from the creator of the category. It appears from various sources about Amis that the term "Action verbs" has been used as a complement to "State/stative verbs", but without known exact criteria and no documentation about its use, the category is not maintainable. The online source that is used for most Amis entries does not categorize verbs in that way, and there are several entries of obviously non-stative verbs that were added, but not categorized as "Action [verbs]" by the category creator. So the current application of the category is not just undocumented but also unintuitive. –Austronesier (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-Deleted Chuck Entz (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)