The first definition reads "That which follows something on which it depends". I think that's ambiguous, an offspring depends on his family, but nobody will say she is a "consequence" of her family. I'd reword that to "That which follows something which causes it", but this wording would make the definition after the semicolon redundant ("that which is produced by a cause"), and I don't want to look like I'm trying to impose my point of view. What do you think? --220.127.116.11 21:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have read this several times and the only conclusion I can come to is that you have a clarity of mind I lack. Sometimes these talk pages aren't monitored that much, so I leave this comment more to assure you your opinion isn't being ignored than anything else. I would also encourage you to create an account at Wiktionary, so that the more feeble minded among us can ask you to explain yourself with simplier words. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I hope you will contribute more. --Stranger 23:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that another meaning should be included: bad consequence. Many people say consequence when they mean bad concequence, like If you do this there will be serious concequences. Doesn't sound like he's gonna give him some candy. I didn't want to include it without asking first.
- Well, you may be right. The definitions given are partially from a 95-year old dictionary in this case I tnink, and are much more formal that what we would have now as well as just not including some modern meanings very well. It could be that including an example under one of the senses already defined will clarify the potential for the meaning that you refer to. DCDuring TALK 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)