Talk:total
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
About the Transitive verb (3): I beleive this is the insurance industry standard term, and thus is beyond the realm of slang. Any thoughts? - TheDaveRoss 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I think you should remove the slang tag; if anyone disputes it, print.google.com citations can easily be added. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The current templatisation misclassifies this as a term from Oscan and Umbrian, which is false. And the cognates use ellipses instead of the actual words. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- When you say it's false, how do you know? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- ‘Related’ terms are not necessarily descended from one another. I thought that that was pretty obvious… --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- While true, it relies on someone paying close attention to the details of your wording- so it's not necessarily obvious. Fortunately, this brought the problems to to the attention of people who could identify and correct the problems while the rest of us were preoccupied by other things, so it was a success. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- ‘Related’ terms are not necessarily descended from one another. I thought that that was pretty obvious… --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The ellipses are a modest innovation, providing a visual clue that something is missing, thereby supplementing
{{rfscript|Ital}}. Would that be a desirable change to{{term}}, ie, displaying '...' when the first and second parameters are omitted? DCDuring TALK 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC) - I've changed {{etyl|osc|en}} to {{etyl|osc|-}} (ditto xum), since the blurb claims only possibly related.— Pingkudimmi 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)