Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-08/Common placenames get entries: difference between revisions

Jump to: navigation, search
("Common name": My point is that you need to be clear with your terminology.)
m ("Common name")
Line 152: Line 152:
   
 
::::::::::::: My point is that you need to be clear with your terminology — something that you and Lmaltier are both failing signally at. My point is that neither one of you has made your actual points in a way that I can be sure I understand — or that ''anyone'' can be sure they understand, aside from yourself and himself — because you keep using the word "word" as though it meant something specific, objective, and universally acknowledged — which it doesn't, even if you explicitly state that it doesn't mean "orthographic word". Finally, my point is that the CFI explicitly include multi-word terms ''without'' pretending that they're "words", and a placename proposal can't suddenly start using the word "word" in a way that contradicts that — <u>whether or not</u> the proposal the proposal restricts us to single-word placenames. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::: My point is that you need to be clear with your terminology — something that you and Lmaltier are both failing signally at. My point is that neither one of you has made your actual points in a way that I can be sure I understand — or that ''anyone'' can be sure they understand, aside from yourself and himself — because you keep using the word "word" as though it meant something specific, objective, and universally acknowledged — which it doesn't, even if you explicitly state that it doesn't mean "orthographic word". Finally, my point is that the CFI explicitly include multi-word terms ''without'' pretending that they're "words", and a placename proposal can't suddenly start using the word "word" in a way that contradicts that — <u>whether or not</u> the proposal the proposal restricts us to single-word placenames. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::::Allow me to try to explain, though {{Hebr|[[על רגל אחת]]}} [[as they say in French|as we say in Hebrew]], why this proposal aims to include ''Forum'' but not ''The Mall''. Better yet, in order to avoid extraneous issues (relating to ''Elm'', noted above, which also apply here), I'll discuss instead ''York'' and ''New York'', which are analogous, I think, for these purposes. ''York'' is the name of a specific place (more than one, actually). ''New York'' is, too. But ''this proposal is not about including names of specific places''. That's already covered in the CFI (although people wish to change that criterion. But that's not what this proposal is about). This proposal is aimed at the person who looks up a word, either not knowing it's a place name (in which case he wouldn't know that ''New York'' is one word, or term, or name, or whatever), or just to find out the pronunciation or etymology or what-have-you (in which case he's as likely, usually, to look up ''York'' as ''New York''). That's the reason I (as original author of the proposal) wish to include ''York'' but not ''New York'' (and ''certainly'' not ''Stratford-on-Avon'' or ''River Thames'' or ''Foo Street'').<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="Unicode">&#x200b;—</span></span>[[User:Msh210|msh210]]<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="Unicode">℠</span></span> 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)