User talk:Hazarasp/Kent Dominic

This and that
Hi Hazarasp, I have three bones to pick. Please humor them before I get to some plaudits.

Bone of contention #1: In the discussion page for been, you posted "Your claim that the quotes are 'cited from poorly edited sources' doesn't have any backing other than your distaste for what the sources say."
 * First and foremost, never quote someone out of context. I emphatically did not claim any such thing. What I in fact posted was "It's inconclusive whether the quotes are dialectal (as you maintain) or merely cited from poorly edited sources." A word to the wise: misquoting a fellow editor is a blockable offense both here and at Wikipedia. I'm not accusing you of willfully misrepresenting what I'd posted. Instead, I'm urging you either to read more carefully or to quote more judiciously, whichever shoe fits better.
 * The presumption that I somehow have "distaste for what the sources say" reflects downright ignorance. Coming from you, after you'd requested evidence for stuff that's submitted for consideration rather than as evidence, I would expect better. How I deem the sources is not only irrelevant, it's 180-degrees from my linguistic approach. (More on that later.) Solution: Avoid needless presumptions.

Bone of contention #2: Your repeated assertion that I hadn't explained stuff that I'd covered from was, in a word, wearying. I can't deny whatever it was that you didn't understand, but I also deny not addressing the stuff that you didn't understand. Solution: Admissions of what you don't understand tend to be well received; accusations of someone else's failure to properly explain stuff tends to invite dismissiveness or an aggressive response.

Bone of contention #3: Ignoring the import of appropriately labeling a given sense will land you in Wiktionary reversion purgatory. Solution: Take my word on it or, if you want to see evidence, scroll through some of my initial edits here, read the corresponding discussions, and waste time reviewing what I learned for myself the hard way.

As for the plaudits: Once you added the sources for "been," the type of dialectal use indicated was news to me. I'm glad you suppleted the sense, I'm a bit surprised you engaged in its discussion for as long as you did, and I'm baffled why you didn't weigh in on its RFD thread. Maybe the process is news to you?

In contrast to any distaste for the sources you provided, I absolutely enjoy trying to analyze the intrinsic grammar of dialectal syntax as well as that in professional jargon. Let me make this boast: you'll never encounter a bigger, badder, more tenacious linguistic iconoclast than I consider myself to be. When I find (or occasionally create) a syntax that can't be analyzed according to a traditional grammar pattern or lexical category, I put another feather into my cap. Need evidence? Gloss some of my contributions on the Wikipedia talk pages relating to grammar. (I don't rant as much here about the traditional so-called POS; most editors here shun a discussion of "lexical category" as a disease worse than Covid-19.)

To give you an idea of where my iconoclasm comes from, I'm neither a logophile nor a linguist. I'm just a writer. I've written four screenplays, a seven-part novel, and a nearly completed textbook on English composition. In that textbook, I don't prescribe ways to compose anything but I do explain compositional syntax that we don't often use conversationally. For instance, it's common to read, e.g., "Come here," he said. Conversationally it normally would be rendered as, He said, "come here." Similarly, you might read something like, "I'm cold," she shuddered. Ignore for a moment that some literary critics would disparage "shuddered" as a said-bookism. ...

My question is, under what label of lexical category should "shudder" be defined? If you bet that no published dictionary anywhere labels "shudder" as a transitive verb, I'm sure you'd win. Consequently, how do I explain the semantic role of verbs like, "I'm cold," she shuddered or "Don't touch me," he recoiled as she reached toward him is my rhetorical question for you.

As said-bookisms, those instances of "shuddered" and "recoiled" make perfectly unremarkable sense in equating to "she said while shuddering/with a shudder" and as "he said while recoiling/with a recoil." Yet, I can all but guaranty that if I tried to enter those senses under a transitive verb label here at Wiktionary, the pushback would be instantaneous. Rightfully so? That's neither here nor there. Practically so? Again, just take my word for it. If I'm wrong, and no one objected, can you guess what would happen if I tried to label them under a locutional verb label?

Now we come full circle: is "been" an infinitive? No, not in 99.9999% of the instances. Can it be used as an infinitive? Apparently so. Should it be labeled as an infinitive in the sense you added? I think not - at least not until its frequency of use crosses (let me pick an arbitrary number) a 0.5% usage threshold.

By way of corollary, is "shudder" a transitive verb? No, not in 99.9999% of the cases. Should it be labeled as an transitive verb if I added the sense and example described above? My linguistic iconoclasm applies only to theory, not to a website in a domain where a 50.1% consensus rules the roost. (And, from a practical standpoint, I'm not willing to cede to Wiktionary my intellectual property rights, one-by-one, regarding the roughly 121,000 new definitions I've created for my textbook.) How about if I used my encoding skills to develop a {en|infinitive|transitive locutional verb} template? If I did, you'll be telling your grandkids that you once chatted with the guy who got blocked and barred for his disruptive antics at Wiktionary just as he was trolled there for his nutty vernacular regarding lexical categories, which no one besides him had ever stopped to consider until his novel became a best seller and his arcane theories then came to public light. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me be a archaeologist and examine each of your bones in turn:
 * Bone 1: You considered it as a possibility; that's sufficient for me to discuss it. As for your claim that "misquoting a fellow editor is a blockable offense", there's a distinction between a out-and-out misquote and a misplacement of emphasis. As for your claim that your claims are "submitted for consideration rather than as evidence", I've considered them and haven't been particularly convinced.
 * Bone 2: You may have "covered" some stuff, but did you cover it well? It is worth bearing in mind that a bad explanation is worse than no explanation; you may have technically "explained" your viewpoint, but if your explanation doesn't contain much in the way of substance, then it might as well not exist. Your claims that I don't understand your explanations are a cheap and unconvincing way of absolving yourself from the responsibility of making coherent points rather than expecting your opponent to intuit your beliefs.
 * Bone 3: I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong and my edits may be undone. I'm not claiming that my edits are absolute perfection; I
 * It's also worth noting that your "bones" don't really get at the real meat of the dispute. Don't give me the three teensy little bones; I need the whole skeleton!
 * Now I'll move on to your "plaudits". Let's begin with the claim that RFD is "news" to me. This is unjustified condescension; the reason I didn't go over to RFD to discuss things was because I was occupied talking to you. I've used RFD before.
 * Secondly, I don't need to hear about your self-conception as a "linguistic iconoclast". It's irrelevant to the matter at hand and doesn't back up your point. For instance, it's perfectly possible for someone who "enjoy[s] trying to analyze the intrinsic grammar of dialectal syntax" to misread a source, as people can be bad at that which they enjoy. Even if they excel at it, human nature means that they'll still make mistakes.
 * I won't discuss your excursus any further, so all that's left to deal with is your claim that shouldn't be labeled as a infinitive unless it meets a "0.5% usage threshold". I believe such a practice isn't justified, but that is immaterial. What matters is the policies that the Wiktionary community has decided upon. Your suggestion doesn't align with them, so it shouldn't be considered. If you disagree with Wiktionary's current inclusion criteria, start a vote.
 * Unfortunately, talking to you hasn't been particularly productive, as you've repeatedly went on tangents instead of actually focusing on the issue. Additionally, I don't think there's much more to be said. I'm not a fan of how some editors "archive" talk page content, but I feel obliged to make a exception here. Any further responses from you will be deleted. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're angry towards me because of my rude and aggressive behaviour, but wiping stuff off of others' talk pages is out of line. I've mellowed a bit now, though I still have significant reservations about the way you behaved towards me (just as I have reservations about the way I acted towards you). I would still prefer it if you didn't respond to me. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not at all angry - at you, or at anything. I'll reiterate: I enjoyed reading all of your posts, even the ones that were out of bounds. I truly do feel bad that you seem to take everything I've posted at face value. As a law school alum, I'm schooled in the Socratic method, so a bunch of what you construed as "claims" are simple propositions (with which I myself might not necessarily agree) to elicit a reply. True dat: You've irked me endlessly with what I'll politely call loose rhetoric, but I nonetheless applaud you for repeatedly engaging with someone like me who' fond of slippery, sardonic schemes in the classic motif. Honestly, sorry if you instead saw it as sarcasm or as my being obtuse. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew there was something off about your rhetoric from the beginning, but I took that as you being boneheaded (I still believe some of it was that; your attitude seems to be partially post-facto rationalisation). It would've still been better if you weren't as obsessed with winning a worthless internet argument (not that I'm entirely innocent of the same). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to put this out there as a generalization without evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, as my belief about how folks tend to interact during arguments. Most people, in my experience, seem to presume that whatever motivates themselves to behave a certain way similarly motivates others in a reciprocal manner. E.g., when the Person A argues X because he wants to win P, he assumes Person B, who argues Y, does so in a competition to win P. Catch my drift?

As applied to been, please accept that I did not, do not, and will not ever have thoughts about "winning" P. My intellectual DNA is programmed for enlightenment in positing an argument, comparing and contrasting others, and seeing which holds up better under scrutiny. If Person A concedes P and thinks he's lost and I've won P, that's not how I operate. I incidentally want to know, as Person B, whether I've persuaded Person A about the soundness of my argument Y if I'm convinced it surpassed that of X. If person A abandons argument X due to exhaustion, to a lack of authority or to a contrary consensus, shame on him! If he instead persuades me to favor Y above X, I'm grateful for the enlightenment. If he thinks I'm ruing the loss of P upon abandoning X, nothing could be further from the truth. I'd join his victory lap for P while I'd coincidentally be celebrating my own enlightenment Z.

Lastly, I won't try to convince anyone of anything contrary to what they think about my attitude. I'm content to believe, regardless of assessments otherwise, how everyone is better served by arguments that shred mine to pieces than by a consensus favoring any faulty argument I might have presented. If your argument had carried the day at RFD, I indeed would have celebrated not that you'd won P, but how you'd opened the Pandora's box for the type of niche labeling that Wiktionary so far has denied when I've attempted the same. Basically, I'd LMFAO for you and at myself.

On separate note: Since I think your argument for sense #4 is holds water overall despite how I insist this isn't the ideal site for the argument itself, I wonder why you're dispensing your insights here for free when you could do it on your own behalf elsewhere without interference from people like me? If you think I'm the worst you've seen, strap yourself in. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

rudimentary questions
Let's provisionally accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that (dialectal, rare) been is an infinitive of "be." Let's also provisionally accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that (dialectal, rare) been is alternative form of "be" (infinitive). Let's not debate the relative merit of those premises. My questions are: Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) What sense of "infinitive" applies to the first of those premises?
 * 2) What sense of "infinitive" applies to the second of those premises, if it differs from the first?
 * 3) Should we apply an axiomatic sense of "infinitive" in every case, or should we apply more than one sense of it on a case-by-case basis?
 * To me, the two premises that you put forwards are equivalent. The sense of infinitive that applies is sense 2 of the English Wiktionary entry for infinitive. I know that definition isn't terribly specific, but I don't think excessive specificity is necessary or helpful here. Therefore, your third question does not necessitate a response at this point. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, to consider the following premise you just provided, i.e.:
 * "infinitive: A non-finite verb form considered neutral with respect to inflection; depending on language variously found used with auxiliary verbs, in subordinate clauses, or acting as a gerund, and often as the dictionary form..."
 * ... should we now assume that:
 * been is a non-finite verb form considered neutral with respect to inflection?
 * As an infinitive, been is amenable to inflection rather than constituting an inflection?
 * --Kent Dominic (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes (on a provisional level; I'm not claiming the definition given is totally watertight. You care far more about this than me.)
 * No; the infinitive is seen as the "base form" of the verb because it's convenient, not because it's a intrinsic property of the infinitive. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

We've established, for the sake of argument, that been, as a (dialectal, rare) infinitive, is neutral with respect to inflection. Some follow-ups:
 * 1) If you know of any, would you kindly provide one or more examples of any attempt to inflect been?
 * 2) Please clarify what you mean by "the infinitive is seen as the 'base form' of the verb because it's convenient, not because it's a intrinsic property of the infinitive." Specifically:
 * Does your mention of "the infinitive..." apply axiomatically to all instances of a lemma deemed to be an infinitive, or does the premise apply solely to been, or is there something else you had in mind?
 * Should we stipulate that there is no such thing as a "base form" of a lemma?
 * If you're dissatisfied with the nexus between been and the infinitive definition you proffered above, would you offer a substitute definition to enable us to determine the precise sense of infinitive we should apply insofar as been is labeled as an infinitive? (If you'd prefer, I'll supply two contrasting definitions of infinitive to see if either one suits you.)
 * NOTE: I have no proof that I care about this more than you do, but I have logs to show that I've spent a great part of the past 3+ years working to resolve this very issue for my own purposes. I'm pleased with the result as of today. Tomorrow might be another story.
 * --Kent Dominic (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It refers to any verb; the statement would be odd if it only applied to . Note that some languages, e.g. Latin do not necessarily treat the infinitive as the base form; for instance, Latin verbs are traditionally lemmatised at the 1p singular present indicative, despite the fact that Latin has (multiple) infinitives: e.g.,.
 * No; once a "base form" is designated, this has real effects (e.g. the creation of a dictionary entry for the base form). This shows that "base forms" are real entities. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 16:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's recap. So far we've established that:
 * (dialectal, rare) been is an infinitive.
 * An infinitive is :
 * A non-finite verb form considered neutral with respect to inflection.
 * A base form of a verb, i.e. a canonical form of a verb.
 * (dialectal, rare) been is a non-finite verb form considered neutral with respect to inflection.
 * (dialectal, rare) been is a base form of a verb, i.e. a canonical form of a verb.
 * Let's move on for now but come back to it as may be warranted.
 * Meanwhile, I suggest we agree to the following premises:
 * Be is an infinitive and therefore a non-finite, uninflected, canonical form of a verb.
 * Be is a defective verb whose cognate forms include:
 * am, is, are, was, and were as finite verb forms
 * been as a non-finite participle
 * being as a non-finite participle or gerund
 * Can we agree to that as stipulated and, for the sake of this discussion, ignore dialectal cognates of be (such as "ain't," "beed," "bees," etc.) and the whole host of archaic forms?
 * --Kent Dominic (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree to that insofar as it applies to the standard language (though there are some slip-ups; for instance, how is defective?); in dialects, forms like  or  may of course have senses other than what you've set out here. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First, regarding as defective, I mean its infinitive form has an incomplete conjugation except as agreed, by modern standards, to the cognates listed above. Let's not get further into how and when those cognates  morphed from the Proto-Indo-European admixture of meanings translated as "be," "become," "live," "exist," "dwell," "stand," etc. Let's also not expound on how "be" can apply regardless of person or number in the archaic syntax of fossil phrases (e.g. "Peace be with you" or "So be it" or even "Goodbye") or dialectal usage (e.g. "He be mad" or "They be hungry"). I basically mean "be" is an oddball kind of verb. Moving on...


 * If we agree that:
 * A. is an infinitive and  is a participle; and that
 * B.  is an  or, if you'd prefer, that   is an  (infinitive),
 * can we then reasonably conclude that:
 * C. In a sentence such as, "But one time it use' to been so cold right first of the winter," that this instance of  is a synonym of (standard) ?
 * --Kent Dominic (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly is incomplete about the conjugation of (compared to, say, ?
 * As for your question: No, it cannot be automatically assumed to be synonymous, since may not be used in exactly the same way that  is. Competing forms do not have to be exactly synonymous; they just have to fulfill the same general role.
 * By the way, please indent your comments. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Granted, by today's standards, "be" isn't defective. I was splitting morphological hairs to make a point that I'll leave moot. Now, to your reply...
 * If cannot be automatically assumed to be synonymous with  in the given quote, or if  might not be used in exactly the same way that  is, then how can   constitute "an " or, if you'd prefer, how can   constitute "an "? --Kent Dominic (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Morphological categories (such as "infinitive", "third-person", and "simple past") are general designations, not exact rubrics for the behaviour of a given form. As such, different forms representing the same morphological category may behave somewhat differently without compromising the category. If you insist on exact identity between different members of a morphological category, you'll quickly find yourself without them, as each member of a morphological category behaves ever so slightly differently . This principle continues to apply where a single lexeme has multiple forms for a single morphological category; for instance, (to) has both  and  within the category "third-person present indicative singular", but that doesn't mean  and  are identical in usage. In fact, it is trivial to demonstrate that they aren't; compare this is what he has with *this is what he's. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hazarasp: Morphological categories (such as "infinitive", "third-person", and "simple past") are general designations.
 * Kent: If by "morphological categories" you mean "lexical categories," I'd agree albeit with one caveat that I'll withhold for now. Yet, our agreement on this point doesn't address my question.
 * Hazarasp: [Lexical categories...] are not exact rubrics for the behaviour of a given form.
 * Kent: Again I agree, albeit with the same caveat withheld. And, once again, your reply doesn't address my question.
 * Hazarasp: As such, different forms representing the same [lexical] category may behave somewhat differently without compromising the category.
 * Kent: Whether that's an apology for exceptions that occur in linguistics or more narrowly to just those in lexicology, I have a different view. I say one bad apple spoils the bunch. Either clear that bad apple (BA) from the set of good apples {GA} or put (BA) and (GA) into the set of all apples {AA}. If you find a bad banana (BB), don't toss it into the set of bad apple {BA}; either put it into the the {BB} set of bad banana or, absent that, into the set of bad fruit {BF}. Ignore all that if you think it's worthless. None of this, i.e. in my rejoinder and your reply, addresses my question.
 * Hazarasp: If you insist on exact [correspondence] between [the identity of members within a lexical] category, you'll quickly find yourself without them, as each member of a [lexical] category behaves ever so slightly differently.
 * Kent: If you're asking me to share in an apology for the big linguistic mess you've insinuated, I'll start by saying I empathize with anyone who's been stymied by the linguistic anomalies we've inherited. In fact, I do apologize that certain age-old lexical categories (which I define quite differently than part of speech) often evince foundational premises that can be easily shown to include misfit members that linguists often ignore else or humiliate themselves in ignorantly trying to explain away. Again, however, none of that - in my rejoinder and your reply - addresses my question.
 * Hazarasp: This principle continues to apply where a single lexeme has multiple forms for a single [lexical category]; for instance, (to) has both  and  within the category "third-person present indicative singular", but that doesn't mean  and  are identical in usage. In fact, it is trivial to demonstrate that they aren't; compare this is what he has with *this is what he's.
 * Kent: Sorry, but I couldn't entirely follow that last bit, yet I'm pretty sure it doesn't address my question, so I'll reiterate it in polar fashion, for simplicity's sake:
 * If, as you asserted,  cannot be automatically assumed to be synonymous with in the given quote, and if  might not be used in exactly the same way that  is, then does   properly constitute "an " or, if you'd prefer, does   properly constitute "an "?
 * Kent: A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I answer your question, let me clarify my position. I'm not just saying that members of a morphological category aren't identical in function. I'm saying that it's fruitless (excuse the pun) to try to redefine such categories so that each category solely consists of members that function identically. In my view, this can only lead to each category having a membership of one, which obviates the entire point of categorisation.
 * Now let me answer your question in the affirmative. I am able to feel comfortable calling both and  "infinitives", because I believe there's enough commonality between the two of them for them to be placed in the morphological category of "infinitive"; members of a morphological category can differ somewhat in function without compromising the category. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your first paragraph sums up what I thought long ago, when I first considered the issues you touched on. The year was 2001, and I'd started writing a textbook about screenwriting. My best friend then, a physics PhD, looked at the glossary and asked questions about the vocabulary I'd used in defining certain glossed terms. From his mathematical view, not only the glossed terms needed definition, but the vocabulary in the definitions needed respective definition. Definitions into infinity?

No. My friend explained the difference between naïve set theory (as you just described it above) and axiomatic set theory. Long story short: As algorithmically applied to linguistics, well-defined sets can be proven logically flawless albeit incomplete. (Kurt Göedel has proof of this.) Nine traditional parts of speech, dating back five centuries and still applied to modern vocabulary and syntax nonexistent then, are not enough to satisfy well-defined criteria, especially in light of vast population of lexical items and syntax variances at work. I won't tell you, unless you ask, how many lexical categories are in my own well-defined sets. (I say well-defined provisionally. Each tweak to the algorithm makes me nervous.) So, you can see why I disagree with your premise from paragraph 1. As for paragraph 2, I'll start a new indent to save margin space...

Now that we've established you feel comfortable calling both and  "infinitives" as applied to the quote under consideration, if, as you asserted, " cannot be automatically assumed to be synonymous with  in the given quote," and if " might not be used in exactly the same way that  is, then what other meaning (or meanings) applies regarding the use of "been" in the given quote, if not synonymous with "be"? Please keep in mind that the entry for  is fairly detailed; the entry for, regarding the verb, is a stub whose definitions are comprised solely of lexical categories.   --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You've put too much effort into discussing a claim that was never meant to be that strong in the first place. When I said that members of a category "can differ somewhat in function without compromising the category", it was as a provisional blanket statement. It wasn't meant as a definitive summary of my methodology for categorisation; if I devoted my energies to formally defining "infinitive", the result would obviously be much more rigorous. In focusing so much on a throwaway comment, you brushed past my point about how morphological categories cannot be defined to "solely consist of members that function identically". (This is of course a natural consequence of the fact that no two grammatical forms in a given language function exactly identically.)
 * To address your third paragraph, you didn't think broadly enough when you asked me "what other meanings" might have; I was thinking of limitations in meaning and usage. In case you are unaware, have just noted the natural consequence of Wiktionary entries being structured so that information is centralised at one headword.  Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hazarasp: You've put too much effort into discussing a claim that was never meant to be that strong in the first place.
 * Kent: What might seem like too much effort to you is mere child's play for me. I can spot fallacious reasoning a mile away. Arguing against them is pure rote and it takes me no time at all to type a first draft. Gripe all you want about the ton that I've written to dispute all you're discombobulated points. If mine look similarly ad hoc, re-read all your hodgepodge of statements. My arguments track and refute your ipse dixits and fallacious conclusions 1:1. I regret that it takes longer to disprove innanity than it takes to spout it.
 * Hazarasp: I said that members of a category "can differ somewhat in function without compromising the category", it was as a provisional blanket statement. It wasn't meant as a definitive summary of my methodology for categorisation.
 * Kent: That's the finest bit of backpedaling I've heard from you. Please, continue.
 * Hazarasp: If I devoted my energies to formally defining "infinitive", the result would obviously be much more rigorous.
 * Kent: If you ever decide to pursue it, a word of advice: Apply principles of axiomatic set theory, not naïve set theory.
 * Hazarasp: You brushed past my point about how morphological categories cannot be defined to "solely consist of members that function identically".
 * Kent: False. I summarized it as "naïve set theory (as you just described it above)." The problem with ALL of your linguistic pronouncements, whether offhand or from a quoted source, is that they're all irredeemably naïve. That's not a snipe against you; it's an observation that the terminology itself has never been axiomatized. When my friend suggested it was theoretically possible to axiomatize linguistics I thought he was insane. When he showed me how it could be done using symbolic logic, I tried it but gave up because it was too much work. That was in 2001. In 2006, Windows came out with fully installed macros in Word, which freed my from manually creating algorithmic macros one-by-one. (Writing computer code is not my idea of fun, but encoding the words with pre-installed macros is 1,000 times easier.)
 * Hazarasp: No two grammatical forms in a given language function exactly identically.
 * Kent: That's why the forms should be axiomatically well-defined, as I mentioned.
 * Hazarasp: You didn't think broadly enough when you asked me "what other meanings" might have.
 * Kent: Thank you for pointing out my narrow-minded thinking. I won't even hint that communication is a two-way street where a listener might be predisposed to a particular interpretation that conflicts with the speaker's intent.
 * Hazarasp: I was thinking of limitations in meaning and usage.
 * Kent: Unfortunately.
 * Hazarasp: In case you are unaware, have just noted the natural consequence of Wiktionary entries being structured so that information is centralised at one headword.
 * Kent: Really? Since when? But seriously, you get what you pay for. My lexicon is structured differently, thanks to Bill Gates. In case you were unaware, each of the 498,000 words in my lexicon is individually defined with with a pop-up summary that provides (a) the lexical category relating to the contextual usage of the given word or phrase, and (b) a pop-up summary a unique sense according to the contextual meaning. Each word or phrase is linked not to a headword in the glossary, but to the specific sense entailed. Any other examples of the same word or phrase with precisely the same meaning are adjoined in their respective contexts, as further examples. The headword provides however many other corollary meanings apply to the same lexeme. It's not a dictionary, so the only senses given are the ones used elsewhere in the textbook.


 * Like, Wiktionary has 10 senses for "the". My lexicon has 9. Roughly 5% of the words for that entry are hyperlinked to the headwords of collateral entries in Wiktionary. By contrast, 100% of my words are individually defined and hyperlinked to the precise sense under a given headword, where 100% of the words there have the same characteristics. You want to call me obsessed with precision? Indeed I am. It's not in my nature; my friend demonstrated long ago how my project would fail with even one teensy weensy encoding error (i.e. as representative of a lexeme, lemma, or phrase).


 * All this to say that when I see how " " contains 7 words including three that are linked to headwords and 4 that are unlinked, there a great big question mark concerning what the sense is supposed to mean. Of course I'm not blaming you for Wiktionary's encoding limitations. And I'm in no way suggesting that you hyperlink every word for every new sense you create and find a way (I think it might exist, but I don't know how to do it in every case) to link each word to a precise sense rather than to a headword. Wiktionary doesn't allow giving a sense in the pop-up; only the headword appears.


 * And no, I don't expect you - in the manner of standard I set for myself - to visit each headword that corresponds to a word you've linked and thereafter make sure that the sense you've intended is worded to your satisfaction on that linked page. If you do, and you have some reservations about a corollary sense (as you've expressed about "infinitive") that's entailed, I won't troll you as being lazy. In my experience, it's par for the course at Wiktionary.
 * On the other hand, if you had edited "infinitive" to better suit your intent, I definitely would have caught it upon seeing your new sense #4. Hazarasp, you've said some obviously, ridiculously, comedically stupid things in our discussions, but almost any edit you might make on the "infinitive" page would be an improvement. If I could see the nexus between your use of "infinitive" regarding been #4 and your edit of "infinitive," THAT would earn my undying respect for your linguistic acumen and practice.


 * As it stands, you recently posted a comment that at first horrified me, then saddened me, but still irks me beyond words. You said, "I don't care that much about the exact wording." Somewhere along the line I use the term "linguistic wannabe." (I think I posted it in the talk page for "been.") Anyone who doesn't care that much about the wording of a sense he carelessly drafted, impulsively restored, and defended with a crazy quilt of linguistic-terminology-in-a-blender is, by neologistic definition, a linguistic wannabe.
 * If you haven't read what I'd hoped to be my swan song in the RFD discussion, I suggest you get to it. I've since changed my mind: I'll edit your sense #4 on my own. I can only do so much with it given the algorithmic limitations of Wiktionary's platform. The sense will look somthing like "4. (dialectal, rare) Synonym of "be," as a complement of the particle, 'to' (linguistics)."
 * In my own lexicon, those 13 words, as applied to the above definition, are defined as follows:
 * dialectal (adjective) - relating to the unique language features of a particular locale or community
 * rare (adjective) - relating to an occurrence that is seldom or infrequent
 * synonym (noun) - a word or phrase whose contextual significance is virtually identical to another word or phrase that can be substituted with negligible change in contextual meaning
 * of (preposition) - relating to, concerning, or involving
 * be (intransitive verb; infinitive form) a stative verb that ... (6 senses given)
 * as (adverb) - 4. in the form of or in the manner of
 * a (determiner) 2. indicates one indefinite object or subject within its generic category of enumerable people or things
 * complement (grammar) – 2. a word, phrase, or clause that is necessary to complete the contextual meaning or the structural integrity of a corresponding element within a sentence
 * of (preposition) - relating to, concerning, or involving
 * the (determiner) – an article that indicates a singular or plural instance of a particular object or subject apart from generic members within its category;
 * particle (grammar) - 1. (a) a function word that constitutes the word, “to,” within a to-infinitive phrase
 * to: (adverbial particle) – a function word that contextually prefaces an infinitive verb and ... (9 senses given)
 * linguistics (noun) - the study of language structures, word units, and word constructs together with variations in their usage
 * I value the input of the seasoned, knowledgeable editors who helped to comprise those definitions, but I'll forgo your input, if you'd please. I've posted the definition not to solicit any favorable or unfavorable critique but solely to provide a better idea of what I intend regarding the sense of #4 definition as I plan. It's impossible to otherwise to explain the definition's nuance with the limited algorithmic tools at hand at Wiktionary.


 * Hazarasp, I have an infinite amount of patience. The likes of you will never erode it, much less wear it thin. And I have nonetheless enjoyed all of your posts in the way that I appreciate the thin line between tragedy and comedy. In hindsight, I shouldn't haven't enjoyed my own posts as much for reasons I won't elaborate. I had intended to end this post with "Hazarasp, my brother, ..." but your "I don't care that much about the exact wording" comment made me reconsider. You have some moxie; put it to better use. Put it to irreproachable use. I'll follow my own advice by resisting the temptation to reply to any more ad hominem spiel from you.


 * One thing I haven't done until now is to comment on your writing fundamentals. Aside from one-off typos and stylistic matters, you've made habitual errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax. The errors themselves are neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, but - if you ever do extract your you-know-what from you-know-where, you could make some linguistic contributions that the others might like to hear. I didn't invent the rules about how one's ethos factor suffers from the perspective of people who demand flawless speech and writing that accord with certain standards, but those rules are there. Your theory of two infinitives has merit in the abstract, but if you habitually write or say things like "a (sic) infinitive," as an example, more than one egghead will dismiss your theories summarily without regard for their content.


 * Lastly, the editor in me begs to point out the one needless word in your edit summary that deleted my Hazaraspus post: "untrue" was already indicated in the post itself, as is evidenced by the word, "fictionalized." However irrelevant (or relevant) or familiar (or unfamiliar) you consider Hazaraspus to be is something I hope never to know. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S. I can see you're champing at the bit to write about how my ego, arrogance, "How dare you blah, blah...?" Well tsk, tsk. Nothing I can say is likely to convince you that I don't give an at's rass about how arrogant or humble you think I am. But I'll let you have it your way: I'm Donald Trump on steroids. I'm narcissistic and self-obsessed with grandeur, the need to condescend, and have a constant desire for validation. Satisfied? I've said it for you so I can laugh at myself and keep from chuckling at you.


 * I will say this about myself: I'm not ashamed to get something wrong as many times as is necessary to get it to work in the end. The genius of staying with something long enough to get it right is more than I can say about certain people who try to convince me of their knowledge or smarts rather than their wisdom. --Kent Dominic (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "What might seem like too much effort to you is mere child's play for me."
 * As you should be aware, "too much effort" can mean many things. Yet you unquestioningly take it to mean one thing ("effort beyond my capability"), despite the surfeit of evidence indicating that it probably means something else ("effort that goes beyond what is required to accomplish resolution of the discussion"). I started discussing this on a lark, so my intentions were never to expend significant effort on it; the discussion hasn't developed in a way that I feel I want or need to reevaluate that decision. It seems to me that your reason for adopting this unquestioning take is because you want to achieve a glorious, self-edifying intellectual victory, let the facts be damned.
 * "Arguing against them is pure rote and it takes me no time at all to type a first draft."
 * Let's leave aside the fact that this claim is the kind of unverified bullshit that you accuse me of supporting. That hardly helps your case; a lot of people are highly adept at churning out bullshit at incredible speeds. Quality of argumentation doesn't correlate positively with rapidity of production; in fact, one would expect a negative correlation.
 * "If mine look similarly ad hoc, re-read all your hodgepodge of statements."
 * I only need to look at your last edit to see a whole bunch of highly intellectually flimsy statements. Both of us have made mistakes, but only one has the ability to admit it.
 * "My arguments track and refute your ipse dixits and fallacious conclusions 1:1."
 * It's more than a bit rich for you to be talking about fallacious, ipse dixit statements, Consider the statement you see quoted above you. Isn't it a blind assertion lacking in any kind of substantiation whatsoever? Don't throw stones at glass houses, Kent.
 * "That's the finest bit of backpedaling I've heard from you. Please, continue."
 * The only person who ever intended that statement as a definitive credo was you, no doubt since it served your ideological purposes to interpret it as such.
 * "You brushed past my point about how morphological categories cannot be defined to 'solely consist of members that function identically'." False. I summarized it as "naïve set theory (as you just described it above)."
 * Now that's a genuine mistake of mine; the full version of that point got lost when in the process of polishing it up for the final edit. What I meant was that such categories cannot be defined to "solely consist of members that function identically" unless one wants categories with only one member each . You must be pleased to have built your argumentative edifice on a argument that was I never intended to make in the first place. Better luck next time :(
 * "I won't even hint that communication is a two-way street where a listener might be predisposed to a particular interpretation that conflicts with the speaker's intent."
 * That is a mightily Freudian slipup which truly goes to show how obsessed you are with proving me wrong, even when reality inconveniently gets in the way.
 * "That's why the forms should be axiomatically well-defined, as I mentioned."
 * This is logic on the level of "1+1=2, therefore meerkat". Presumably, if it is really possible to create a system of the sort you propose, it would be possible to create multiple such systems, just as you can devise multiple competing, and sometimes contradictory, mathematical theories. As a gross oversimplification, the theories which adopted are the ones which have real-world applications; your theory hasn't been showed to have any, so why should I place stock in it?
 * "Unfortunately"
 * Unfortunately, this is yet another unevidenced argument I have to deal with.
 * "My lexicon is structured differently, thanks to Bill Gates"
 * If your lexicon is so amazing (which I doubt), release it to the world rather than using it as a intellectual cudgel to criticise Wiktionary practices you aren't fond of. At the very least, go and start a vote and prepare to convince the Wiktionary community how mindblowing what you're advocating for is. In fact, if its superiority is so evident, why are you still here?
 * "100% of my words are individually defined and hyperlinked to the precise sense under a given headword"
 * I won't engage with every aspect of your self-aggrandisement, but this is too ridiculous to leave alone. Fun fact: words used in definitions may sometimes apply to multiple senses of a headword.
 * "and find a way (I think it might exist, but I don't know how to do it in every case) to link each word to a precise sense rather than to a headword."
 * In case you decide to do something that's actually useful, here it is: (read the documentation).
 * "Hazarasp, you've said some obviously, ridiculously, comedically stupid things in our discussions,"
 * Now I admit that my argumentation has been far from flawless, but a lot of what seems stupid to you only appears that way due to your stubbornness, ideological rigidity, and willingness to substitute a superficial impression of what's said for the sordid reality.
 * "Anyone who doesn't care that much about the wording of a sense he carelessly drafted,"
 * In my view, a bad sense is better than no sense. That plan was always to improve it at some later date, but the commotion surrounding it has prevented it from happening.
 * "impulsively restored, and defended with a crazy quilt of linguistic-terminology-in-a-blender is, by neologistic definition, a linguistic wannabe."
 * You repeating accusations about my supposed misuse of technology does not make them true. You can build the wooden plane and airstrip all you want, but John Frum won't come.
 * "'4. (dialectal, rare) Synonym of 'be,' as a complement of the particle, 'to' (linguistics).'"
 * That is exactly the kind of incoherent, inconsistent mess that you have regularly accused me of writing. (I don't disagree with the concept of p
 * "I've posted the definition not to solicit any favorable or unfavorable critique but solely to provide a better idea of what I intend regarding the sense of #4 definition as I plan."
 * Thanks for being honest about the fact that you don't care about others' opinions. Unfortunately for you, others may not care about your opinions on that, especially as it's antithetical to good debate.
 * "Aside from one-off typos and stylistic matters, you've made habitual errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax"
 * I'm well aware of the fact that the usage in my edits does not always conform to the diktats of prescriptive "authorities". I even mentioned it in one of your responses to me. This is not a symptom of my supposed sloppiness, as much as you might like to think so. Instead, I have purposely decided to ignore the aforementioned diktats in order to represent my own speech better. I won't belabour you with my motivations for doing so.
 * "you could make some linguistic contributions that the others might like to hear."
 * You are talking to someone who has 50 times as many much Wiktionary edits as you. It is more than a bit rich for you to be talking in this vein.
 * "Your theory of two infinitives has merit in the abstract, but if you habitually write or say things like 'a (sic) infinitive,' as an example, more than one egghead will dismiss your theories summarily without regard for their content."
 * If said eggheads insist on behaving in such a manner, I am perfectly capable of dismissing them summarily without regard for their content.
 * "Lastly, the editor in me begs to point out the one needless word in your edit summary that deleted my Hazaraspus post: 'untrue' was already indicated in the post itself, as is evidenced by the word, 'fictionalized.'"
 * When something is touted as "fictionalised", audiences usually believe that it has some relation to the truth, even if distant. Your post and the truth are only related in the same way that I am genetically related to a banana.
 * "Nothing I can say is likely to convince you that I don't give an at's rass about how arrogant or humble you think I am. But I'll let you have it your way: I'm Donald Trump on steroids. I'm narcissistic and self-obsessed with grandeur, the need to condescend, and have a constant desire for validation. Satisfied? I've said it for you so I can laugh at myself and keep from chuckling at you."
 * That's something I'm perfectly capable of managing; I've had to deal with plenty of children in my life. What really gets my goat here is that the hypocrisy of what you're saying to me is so rank that it stinks to the highest heavens. You accuse me of making ad hominem attacks, but make several yourself. You complain about my statements being unevidenced, but don't even bother with the pretence of evidence for your claims. You whine about me constantly ranting at you, but go on exceedingly long rants yourself.
 * "I will say this about myself: I'm not ashamed to get something wrong as many times as is necessary to get it to work in the end."
 * Good for you. Now begone. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 19:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some quick (relatively) comments and then I'll begone.
 * It really is possible to create the system I described, and it's it'll be easier for the next person to replicate it than it was for me to create the prototype. For someone who's more nimble at encoding than I am, his or her Version 2.0 will make my platform seem archaic. Mine won't be ready until the middle of next year. If I get a yearlong head start I'll be thrilled. Substantively, I'll get scorched by traditional linguists who cherish, for example, their relative pronoun stalwart as indiscriminately applied in each case of "This is proof that you're right" versus "I'm sure that you're right" versus "I know that you're right." In my book, those instances fall into three separate lexical categories - none of which are pronouns despite how I acknowledge the pronominal pedigree.


 * Am I ready to take the heat for such things? No problem. Is my linguistic analysis correct? Not according to traditionalists. Are my definitions internally consistent within the ambit of my axiomatic sets? So far so good. Why don't I want your input on the definitions? Neither favorable nor unfavorable comments will change the encoding decisions I've made. That dye has been cast and can't be uncast without a year-long revamp for the sake of one definition that might be objectively better but would cause an encoding apocalypse.


 * As for ad hominem statements, my incisiveness is directed to what you've said and your manner of saying it. None of it has been directed at you, your personality, ability, or anything similar. In my book, ad hominem attaches to criticizing a person, not to a person's actions or speech. I'm habitually careful to couch blunt ad hominem criticism in abstract, third-person terms. If you construed them as applying to you, I'm an "if the shoe fits..." kinda guy."


 * Cheers, and your most recent edits to been are light years better than your earliest attempts. Please don't ask me for evidence on that account. It's just an opinion, and I could be proven wrong. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a few thoughts on your thoughts to wrap up:
 * "Substantively, I'll get scorched by traditional linguists who cherish, for example, their relative pronoun stalwart as indiscriminately applied in each case of 'This is proof that you're right' versus 'I'm sure that you're right' versus 'I know that you're right.'"
 * I think mainstream linguistics will be open towards your ideas if you're able to justify them while not committing any major faux-pas. As a field, linguistics is underfunded and marginalised compared to, say, the STEM fields; many linguists will let a lot slide because they're grateful to have the attention at all. A lot of the hostility you face here and on WP is because both projects run on a complex web of unstated expectations; if you upset them even a bit, you get shat on. While there's definitely unspoken assumptions within linguistics, it isn't that bad.
 * "None of it has been directed at you, your personality, ability, or anything similar."
 * You've definitely tried to avoid such statements, but I can't say that you've been entirely successful (which isn't surprising given the tension that has permeated the discussion).
 * "I'm habitually careful to couch blunt ad hominem criticism in abstract, third-person terms. If you construed them as applying to you, I'm an 'if the shoe fits...' kinda guy.'"
 * That probably didn't help; I tend to see that as being a evasive form of criticism.
 * "your most recent edits to been are light years better than your earliest attempts."
 * That isn't surprising, given that I compromised with you about many things. However, don't take this to mean that I don't genuinely agree with some of the points I raised. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I myself agree, in theory, with most of the substantive points you made. Their application to been #3 (formerly #4) is a different story. If you backed away from your points I'd think you were spineless. I wouldn't say so, but I'd feel right in thinking so. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A semantic question
Before I get to my semantic question...

I don't have any formal training in linguistic theory. I have extensive language background in grammar, syntax, and semantics. I know and sometimes can recall a lot of trivia about etymology and morphology. I've been trained in formal logic and I have a practical grasp of set logic. I'm not passionate about any of the above. My one professional passion is writing with a side interest is rhetoric.

In 2015, some of my ESL students wanted to read my novel, which I'd written solely with native English speakers in mind. The very first sentence in my novel is, "Most days, vehicles are few and far between along Louisiana Highway 87..." Students routinely asked questions like: The students were steeped in grammatical terminology, so they understood my explanations: There'll be no rush of native English speakers eager to know what a prepositional adverbial phrase (etc.) is supposed to mean just as hardly anyone really cares what a reduced relative clause is or whether it's better to call it an asyndetic adjectival clause (e.g. "Here's proof [ø] you're right"), an asyndetic adverbial clause (e.g "I'm sure [ø] you're right"), or an asyndetic nominal clause (e.g. "I know [ø] you're right") versus a content clause (e.g. "I know [ø] you're right"). Whatever we call that syntax doesn't change the semantic meaning.
 * Shouldn't it be "On most days"?
 * What does "vehicles are few" mean?
 * What does "vehicles are... far" mean?
 * What does "between along" mean?
 * "Most days" is an adverbial phrase. It's not an adverb phrase because it doesn't have an adverb. It's not a prepositional adverbial phrase because I, like a lot of native speakers, elided the preposition, "on." It's an elliptical adverbial phrase.
 * "Few and far between" is an adjective phrase, with "few" and "far" as stative adjectives, and between as a postpositive adverb.

To recycle my favorite spoonerism from an earlier post, I don't give an at's rass about linguistic theory and schemas per se. All of the linguistic terms of my own invention are intentionally labeled as grammatical terms (i.e. instead of "linguistic terms") to highlight that my only use for them is to help explain the range of syntaxes in my book. Properly calling them linguistic terms would scare people off, sight unseen.

I'd never encountered "been" as a dialectal substitute for "be" prior to your first draft of the sense. Honestly, without the quotes, the sense of it seemed more like vandalism by a sixth grader or mumbo jumbo from a non-native English speaker. Once you added the quotes it became apparent that you were on to something, but the quotes themselves were suspect for reasons let's not rehash despite any lingering disagreement we might have.

I have no disrespect for anyone who hasn't clearly thought out the difference between a word as an infinitive versus a word as infinitival, nor do I besmirch anyone who's never used "infinitival" at all. I can't say the same about the folks at Wikipedia, who intentionally and absolutely mistakenly redirect adverb phrase to adverbial phrase. So as not be ad hominem I won't call them pinheads, but that redirect is a pinheaded move.

I don't claim to have considered the linguistic import of every syntax of every utterance of every dialect of English. I've only worked it out for the text included in my book. After 755 original definitions for the (*ahem*) grammar terms in my book, I've pretty much covered the majority of syntaxes considered standard, as well as a dozen or so that are dialectal (specifically south central Louisianan as heavily influenced by Cajun).

If you have any pressing questions or insights about linguistics (*ack*) or semantics, ping me. Chances are I've given the subject some prior thought. If any insights persuade me to abandon the way I've looked at something, I'll consider that a good day. That's not to say I'd rush to change my paradigm's axioms accordingly. As I said earlier, the encoding element is set and can't be undone by simply changing the wording of a given definition.

Meanwhile, here's a semantic brain teaser of a question for you... Let's assume that the word, "what," from the perspective of traditional POS, is a pronoun in the following excerpt: "I’ll listen to what you and your minions have to say." My question is, what kind, i.e. what lexical category, of "what" is it? Is it an object pronoun? A subject pronoun? Some other kind of pronoun?

NOTE:I'm not aiming to disparage your answer. Please give me the same courtesy when I tell you how I've analyzed the "what" in question. We have Sister Noraleen, who rightly corrected a grammar error I'd made in ninth grade, to thank for how I look at it now.

--Kent Dominic (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, a follow-up brain teaser... In, "I’ll listen to what you and your minions have to say," is "say" a transitive verb or is it intransitive? Fair warning: Whichever side you take, I'm going to rebut it just for fun to show you the maddening back-and-forth I had with myself. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fording the semantic gulf in search of the mythic grain of salt
Me: Fixed punctuation for an otherwise masterfully crafted edit with an epically good template. You: You don't need to shower me in excessive praise, Kent. Your opinion is only one guy's. Me: I wasn't praising you. I shun ad hominem statements, pro or con. (Besides, I have no evidence of who wrote the edit, only an indication of the IP and signature.) I was praising the edit. My opinion is only one guy's. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want, replace me with my edits; my point still applies. I don't want to get into a debate about this, but to me, your edit summary still amounted to indirect praise.
 * By the way, I'll be moving all my conversations with you to a dedicated subpage of my talk page. I don't want the morass of our back-and-forth to scare away any editors (especially newcomers) that need to talk to me. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

epitaph for been
Indeed my praise for your edit of my draft was well earned, properly given, and admittedly effusive. Would you expect less from me? Apply another round of applause to the example you posted, replacing mine. Much better than my draft. I'm certain, and perhaps , would agree. As for the subpage: good idea. Our saga already spooked one editor (who mistook prolixity for harassment), as noted in my recent posts on 's talk page. Now I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop: eventually someone will take issue with my infinitival edit, which I posted to help interpret been sense #3 (formerly sense #4). No sweat if an editor improves or even deletes what I attempted at infinitival, but heads will explode if my edit summary there triggers someone to monkey with been after all the effort that went into it. --Kent Dominic (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

^"... that been went into it." ^been:. ^went:. ^Your next project(s). I've even heard, "that has been went into it" as a dialectal overcorrection(?). --Kent Dominic (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

myuht'b'n
In my first visit to Baton Rouge, a local Cajun woman said, "Y'all myuht'b'n riot," in reply to a comment I'd made. To this day I have no idea whether she meant: Please apply a huge dose of skepticism about whether my quote accurately represents what the woman actually said. I wrote it as best I can, as I heard it. To the woman in question, if you see this post and insist you said, "Y'all myhtuh been riot," I deeply apologize. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You might have been right.
 * You might be not right.
 * You might been right.