Talk:Syntaxis

Specific instances

Would Dickens count as reasonably syntactic? 81.152.162.106 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of "Syntaxis"

I can't find any evidence of syntaxis being what it's suggested to be. The definition of being a literary technique doesn't exist on Wiktionary either. And on top of that, I don't see how it's syntactically possible for there to be any third option after parataxis and hypotaxis. Sentences can either contain subordinate clauses (hypotaxis) or not (parataxis), I don't see how a third option could exist when it's pretty binary. Hrabnaz (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this page reliant on a single source, that single source only references this article for proof!

Theoretically a sentence could be neither parataxis nor hypotaxis because, as I understand it, parataxis avoids conjunctions but hypotaxis refers to clauses that are subordinate, rather than on the same syntactic level. For me the greater issue is the apparent lack of any supporting evidence for this term's use as a literary technique, rather than as a synonym for syntax. Ralon17 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked OED. It has entry for syntaxis and gives three meanings: obsolete synonym for syntax, technical term in geology and technical term in crystallography. So no evidence for the claimed meaning to exist.

Unless some evidence to the contrary appears here, I will propose this for deletion. Stca74 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With no reactions in a week, I am proceeding to propose deletion now. Stca74 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]