108
edits
User talk:Follower of Light: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The word "etymology"
| Line 857: | Line 857: | ||
:From my perspective, "etymology" as we use it is perfectly acceptable (i.e. the concept that the writer of the word seeks to communicate to the recipient and what the recipient understands is the same) and, if I can use my own recollection as a corpus, very common for wikis and even beyond. Sorry, had to simplify a lot, besides my degree is in another language. Anyway, I see no cause to change it. Words evolve with time and cultural context, and this is not that big of a departure? | :From my perspective, "etymology" as we use it is perfectly acceptable (i.e. the concept that the writer of the word seeks to communicate to the recipient and what the recipient understands is the same) and, if I can use my own recollection as a corpus, very common for wikis and even beyond. Sorry, had to simplify a lot, besides my degree is in another language. Anyway, I see no cause to change it. Words evolve with time and cultural context, and this is not that big of a departure? | ||
:Actually, I kind of struggle to see how you conceptualise our use on one hand and the various definitions you sent on the other, differently. Sure, etymology can explain the changes that lead to the spelling and pronunciation of a word, but it's a byproduct of how words are formed in natural languages; if it was the actual focus, you'd be thinking more of phonology and graphology. Etymology is just the study of the "true origin" of a word, so of course in natural languages it comes from gradual spelling and speaking changes and that's what's studied, but in conlangs and neologism, we'd be looking at the root words that have been portmanteau'd or otherwise been used to make a new term. Not sure if I'm making myself clear.--[[User:Tigali|Tigali]] ([[User talk:Tigali|talk]]) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (EDT) | :Actually, I kind of struggle to see how you conceptualise our use on one hand and the various definitions you sent on the other, differently. Sure, etymology can explain the changes that lead to the spelling and pronunciation of a word, but it's a byproduct of how words are formed in natural languages; if it was the actual focus, you'd be thinking more of phonology and graphology. Etymology is just the study of the "true origin" of a word, so of course in natural languages it comes from gradual spelling and speaking changes and that's what's studied, but in conlangs and neologism, we'd be looking at the root words that have been portmanteau'd or otherwise been used to make a new term. Not sure if I'm making myself clear.--[[User:Tigali|Tigali]] ([[User talk:Tigali|talk]]) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (EDT) | ||
{|class="wikitable" | |||
| | |||
I am using a table because I am going to use several indentations. | |||
By the way, I am afraid that the following statement shows an underlying difference in the approach to the problem at hand: | |||
: >>> ''Words evolve with time and cultural context'' | |||
The above is a "Common Law" statement (if definition and common usage disagree, definition shall be updated). I come from a "Civil Law" country (written rules and definitions, not common usage, determine whether something is correct or wrong). | |||
: >>> ''I kind of struggle to see how you conceptualise '''''our use''''' on one hand and the various '''''definitions you sent''''' on the other'' | |||
Easy: your use does not match the definitions at all. Evidence: the contents of your etymology sections are completely different from the etymology sections provided (where applicable) by any "non-fandom" website. Such a big departure is, to me, an obvious problem. If someday the '''definition''' of "etymology" will be modified, then your '''use''' might become correct; right now, the two do not match. | |||
: >>> ''in conlangs and neologism, we'd be looking at the root words that have been portmanteau'd or otherwise been used to make a new term.'' | |||
'''I agree on this point, with some caveat.''' Indeed, I checked about 100 etymology sections on Dragon-Quest.org, and left about 20 as they are, because they are neologisms or puns. On the other hand, translations, definitions, and descriptions are different from etymologies. | |||
: >>> ''So a linguist would definitely not frown upon the use of the word etymology in the way that it is used here,'' | |||
I disagree. One year ago, I raised this same point on another Wiki. In order to provide evidence, I sent a message to several linguists from Wikipedia Linguistics Portal. All the answers were like: "There is not an ounce of etymology there" (because I was the only one who provided any evidence, that wiki stonewalled me... AND they also sent me a policies link stating that stonewalling is forbidden on their own wiki). ---[[User:Abacos|Abacos]] ([[User talk:Abacos|talk]]) 09:46, 24 August 2023 (EDT) | |||
|} | |||