Arranged by etymology?
Why is this arranged by etymology? Surely it would make more sense to arrange it by meaning? --188.8.131.52 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Arranging the senses chronologically by etymology not only conveys the term's history, but also gives us an objective method of ordering senses (and as a global, descriptive and highly current dictionary, objective methods are essential). When you say "arrange it by meaning", whose preferred meaning would come first? (And why?)--Tyranny Sue 02:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Take this or leave it: but wouldn't the affect/effect point be much easier to follow with a simpler example? Instead of:
- new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have effected major changes in governmental institutions
...maybe some thing more like:
- the new policies have effected major changes in government.
...which would (if I understand it correctly???) enable the same point to be made. 184.108.40.206 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The original sentence had way too much cruft. Since noone has commented in four years, I've gone ahead and made the change. --220.127.116.11 04:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Why three etymologies?
I don't understand the difference between the Etymology 1 section and the Etymology 2 section. Their meanings seem to overlap, the pronunciations are identical, and the etymologies themselves are more or less the same. Why are they listed as distinct? Should they be merged? --18.104.22.168 04:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- The difference is subtle, but it's definitely real. There are some senses that are hard to place with one or the other, but the core of Etymology 1 has to do with having an effect on something (or in the archaic senses, the other way around), while the core or Etymology 2 is trying to be or pretending to be something. There were also some senses that seem to have ended up under Etymology 1 by mistake, which I moved.
- As for the etymologies, they may start from the same Latin verb, but they get to English by different routes: Etymology 1 went by way of the past participle of the original verb, which became a noun, which was then used to form a verb. Etymology 2 went by way of a frequentative verb derived from the original verb, which stayed a verb all the way into English. Etymology 1 and Etymology 3 are actually closer to each other than either is to Etymology 2, because they both include the past participle as a noun, though Etymology 1 made a verb out of it on its way through Middle French and Middle English, while Etymology 3 borrowed it directly into Middle English from Latin itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)