| Wiktionary:Information desk Nov 30th 2012, 22:04 Related terms for compounds sharing one part?: @CodeCat, DCDuring | ← Older revision | Revision as of 22:04, 30 November 2012 | | Line 1,466: | Line 1,466: | | | : I think it would be more useful for [[[[zonnevlek#Related terms]]]] to include a note to see [[[[zon#Derived terms]]]]. One complication, though, is that some of our editors believe that ===Etymology=== and ===Derived terms=== should be strictly about ''diachronic'' etymology. The term {{term|zonnebloem|lang=nl}} may be compound of {{term|zon|lang=nl}} and {{term|bloem|lang=nl}}, but does that necessarily mean that it's derived <u>from</u> {{term|zon|lang=nl}}? I say yes, others say "move to RFV". —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | : I think it would be more useful for [[[[zonnevlek#Related terms]]]] to include a note to see [[[[zon#Derived terms]]]]. One complication, though, is that some of our editors believe that ===Etymology=== and ===Derived terms=== should be strictly about ''diachronic'' etymology. The term {{term|zonnebloem|lang=nl}} may be compound of {{term|zon|lang=nl}} and {{term|bloem|lang=nl}}, but does that necessarily mean that it's derived <u>from</u> {{term|zon|lang=nl}}? I say yes, others say "move to RFV". —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | | :: I'm not really sure what else it would be derived from, though. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 19:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | :: I'm not really sure what else it would be derived from, though. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 19:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | | + | ::: It could be from a Middle Dutch word for "sunflower", which in turn was from the Middle Dutch etymons for {{term|zon|lang=nl}} and {{term|bloem|lang=nl}}. (In this specific case that can't be, because historical considerations allow us to know that Middle Dutch can't have had a word for "sunflower", but this was just an example.) —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 22:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | | + | | | | ::Do you have an example of an entry that suffers from the problem you mention? | | ::Do you have an example of an entry that suffers from the problem you mention? | | | ::For some terms that have very few relatives there is good reason to include in Related terms the few relatives that they have. It makes otherwise small, bare entries more interesting and informative and can elucidate the meaning and etymology of the headword. If we have a reasonable number of contributors sensitive to the esthetics and utility of entries, this could work. Of course when one looks at some of our longer entries, this seems like an idle hope at best, but I remain hopeful. | | ::For some terms that have very few relatives there is good reason to include in Related terms the few relatives that they have. It makes otherwise small, bare entries more interesting and informative and can elucidate the meaning and etymology of the headword. If we have a reasonable number of contributors sensitive to the esthetics and utility of entries, this could work. Of course when one looks at some of our longer entries, this seems like an idle hope at best, but I remain hopeful. | | | ::For larger entries, those that have the worst performance and navigation problems, which would mostly include English headwords, especially for compounds, we might want to apply stricter rules. When I look at a few English terms that might potential suffer from the potential problem posited (''[[inset]], [[onset]], [[setback]], [[backtalk]]''), I don't find the problem at all. | | ::For larger entries, those that have the worst performance and navigation problems, which would mostly include English headwords, especially for compounds, we might want to apply stricter rules. When I look at a few English terms that might potential suffer from the potential problem posited (''[[inset]], [[onset]], [[setback]], [[backtalk]]''), I don't find the problem at all. | | | ::When I was experimenting with using categories as a repository for derivations (an effort that foundered in part because it required squarely addressing both diachronic and synchronic etymology), I was thinking that it would afford a way of including comprehensive lists of derived terms and offer a ready path to cognates for users who were interested, without actually requiring effort to enter each related term under each related headword and without the burden of downloading such a list until a user demanded it and hit the category link. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | ::When I was experimenting with using categories as a repository for derivations (an effort that foundered in part because it required squarely addressing both diachronic and synchronic etymology), I was thinking that it would afford a way of including comprehensive lists of derived terms and offer a ready path to cognates for users who were interested, without actually requiring effort to enter each related term under each related headword and without the burden of downloading such a list until a user demanded it and hit the category link. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | | | + | ::: I believe one example is {{term|northwind|lang=en}}, which IIRC is a reflex of forms attested since much older forms of English; so your approach to etymology and derivation would claim that it's ''not'' derived from Modern English {{term|north|lang=en}}. So it could conceivably be a "related term" at [[[[northerly]]]], but not a "derived term" at [[[[north]]]]. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 22:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |  |
