User talk:TomSFox

Recent contributions
Hi. I find your recent contributions problematic, and in some cases reverted them. Completely rewriting existing templates (as you did with ) is not good etiquette, this is a collaborative project. Similarly, some of your other changes (e.g. Special:Diff/51610006/51610346) delete etymologies, usage notes and other content without giving any explanation, in one big edit, making it very difficult to follow. – Jberkel 16:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The original template was bloated, confusing, factually incorrect, and tried to shoehorn Italian pronouns into a Latin paradigm. Wiktionary wouldn’t be a collaborative project if people didn’t correct each other’s mistakes. Also, usage notes were deleted because they were incorrect (which is obvious from the citations I posted). I don’t remember deleting etymologies. TomSFox (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that the current template is unwieldy but that's not a reason to unilaterally throw everything away. There are talk pages where such changes can be discussed. Your version of the table is perhaps a bit too simple. Which factual errors do you mean?
 * regarding “obvious from citations”: in Special:Diff/51543968/51610412 you remove content without providing citations, and replace it wrong information. In Special:Diff/51219734/51606379 you provide citations but two of those are misplaced (should go to ). Still, the sporadic historical usage (14-17th c.) you cited (while valuable) doesn't justify the removal of the "informal" label (in Special:Diff/51610006/51610346, which also removes notes and a synonym w/o explanation). – Jberkel 22:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are a few examples of factual errors in the table:
 * It claims that Italian has a genitive case.
 * It claims that Italian has a locative case.
 * It claims that lui, lei, noi, voi, and loro are only nominative when they are also accusative.
 * It claims that the pronominal adverbs ci, vi, and ne are only third person when that isn’t the case (think of sentences like, “Ne ho avuto abbastanza di te,” and, “Ci tiene a me”).
 * Please explain why you think my table is too simple.
 * Again, if I removed something, it’s because it is incorrect. The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate that it isn’t true. The burden o̦f proof is on you to demonstrate that it is true.
 * All the information I provided is 100% correct. If you think it isn’t, please explain why.
 * Distinguishing between gli and -gli is rather pedantic. They are literally the same thing. And even by that standard, I only see one misplaced citation (one contains two different instances of gli). But if you think that citation is misplaced, feel free to move it. This is, after all, a collaborative effort.
 * How many citations do you need to see before you don’t consider it sporadic anymore? TomSFox (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * “claims that Italian has a (genitive|locative) case”
 * These are not "claims", just naming conventions used in other places as well (Italian_grammar, Grammatica_italiana).
 * “lui, lei, noi, voi, and loro only nominative“
 * The non-nominative usage is listed in the "disjunctive" column (which corresponds to stressed/tonico forms). It's more precise to list them along accusative/dative forms, but that would make it more confusing. In your version of the table you just list them as "oblique", which doesn't indicate the precise case either.
 * “claims that the pronominal adverbs ci, vi, and ne are only third person“
 * In the examples you mention the adverbs have only emphatic effect and can be removed without changing the sense: “Tiene a me”, “Ho avuto abbastanza di te”. ne and ci are idiomatic in these cases (tenerci, averne abbastanza).
 * “the burden of proof is on you”
 * Wiktionary is not Wikipedia, so you can't simply point to WP policies, the practices here are different. I agree that statements should be sourced when possible, but you should also consider alternatives to simply deleting content: rewording,, or . If you delete statements, at least explain your motives in the summary.
 * “How many citations do you need”:
 * You removed the informal tag on and added citations from the 17th c. (and older). If you want to prove that  is no longer considered informal you need to cite contemporary usage from non-informal sources.
 * “Please explain why you think my table is too simple”
 * Some forms are missing:, (not present in current table). And even if it is falling in disuse,  should still be listed as a dative plural form. Information about the formal term of address is completely missing ( etc). I agree with you that the various elided forms should not be listed in the table, perhaps they can be mentioned as footnotes. Maybe there's some middleground between the current version and yours.
 * – Jberkel 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t matter if other wiki pages claim that Italian has a genitive and locative case. That doesn’t make it true.
 * The problem with the term disjunctive is that it doesn’t tell us anything about which syntactic role a pronoun plays, which might also be subject (and not every stressed pronoun is disjunctive). That’s why I used oblique instead, which covers not only dative and accusative, but also the use after prepositions. By the way, me, te, lui, lei, noi, and voi are not dative, so they shouldn’t be listed as such.
 * Actually, the ne can not be removed. At any rate, ci and ne are still not third person in those cases.
 * The burden of proof is still on you. That’s a general concept, not just WP policy.
 * Why else would I delete statements if not because they aren’t correct?
 * The citations show that gli was never informal to begin with.
 * Glie-, ce, and Lei are just alternate forms of gli, ci, and lei. You shouldn’t try to squeeze everything and the kitchen sink into a table. Keep it simple.
 * Who said that loro was falling into disuse? It’s already listed as oblique plural, which covers the dative.
 * You still haven’t explained how my information was incorrect.
 * – TomSFox (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * “...has a genitive and locative case”: the table describes pronouns which are used in a genitival/locative function, that's all. It doesn't not say "Italian has a genitive case". By the same token you would need to avoid accusative and dative as well (as seen in some grammars, which only use "direct/indirect object").
 * “me, te, lui, lei, noi, and voi are not dative, so they shouldn’t be listed as such.“: I don't see what you mean, they are not listed as dative.
 * “The citations show that gli was never informal to begin with”: the citations only show that these forms were used in writing earlier, but informal refers to the current situation. It could also say "now informal", if that makes it clearer, but the usage notes already explain that.
 * “Who said that loro was falling into disuse?”: You, by not including it your table, and by deleting the usage notes and the synonym in Special:Diff/51610006/51610346 (loro for gli (dative), that is).
 * “Why else would I delete statements if not because they aren’t correct”: what about the previously mentioned diff? or Special:Diff/51543968/51610412? Why did you delete all these statements? Are they all wrong? And why do you suggest that be used instead of ?
 * – Jberkel 19:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)