Yuck, are we trying to become OED part II ? Half of all the (sub)senses can be merged. — Vildricianus 11:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This was the result of a massive update by everyone's favorite, Primetime - my vote is to revert to the way it was. SemperBlotto 11:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That could indeed be more time-saving than trying to work through the entire mess. — Vildricianus 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- What is wrong with this article being expanded? In this case I don't even mind that Primetime is not sticking to WS:ELE since there is no precedence for an entry of this size. We should definitely tolerate Primetime's current edit spree and then change whatever needs improvement. Ncik 11:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
something's got to give
What does that mean? 220.127.116.11 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- In an untenable situation, some part of the problem has to change. Literally, something has to yield. —Stephen 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Etymology questionable and without any references
Why not < OS g(i)efan????
- That cannot be Ossetic...why do you even suggest it? What in the etymology do you question? This is not Wikipedia, we usually do not give references for etymologies. —Stephen (Talk) 10:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose the user meant Old English (or Old Saxon?). Anyway, the reason why this word cannot be simply inherited is that OE g- before front vowels became [j-] and yields modern English y-. Of course, the Norse and OE forms will have merged over time, rather than one actually "replacing" the other. (I'm just saying this incase someone else should ever wonder.) Kolmiel (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
While dealing with the "Proto-Oceanic" mess, I ran into (or should I say stepped in?) another long-ignored set of erroneous etymologies:
User:Drago (talk • contribs) wasn't active for more than a few months, but his/her misplaced confidence in his/her expertise, and prodigious work ethic, left errors scattered all over the place, many of which are still yet to be uncovered, six years later.
One innocuous-looking practice was to put "Originally x" in the etymology, where x is a presumed earlier form of the headword. It's only after you stop to examine the specifics that you realize he/she wasn't citing an attested earlier form of the same language, but (sort of) reconstructing a proto-form without mentioning the fact, and without any information about where it fits in the history of the language's development.
I first noticed these in Polynesian-language entries, but I've also seen several Germanic examples, such as Old High German forms followed by an "original" form with the Old High German consonant shifts "unshifted". I also noticed one case of an Old English word oroþ where Drago's etymology said: "Originally very likely *ozoþ, from a Germanic *uzunþa-". Given that the change from *z to *r is supposed to have happened in Proto-West Germanic, and the loss of the *n before *þ is supposed to have happened in Proto-Ingvaeonic, hundreds of years later, *ozoþ could never have existed at all! There are no doubt many more examples where I'm not familiar enough with the sound changes to spot errors as easily as I did with this one.
This strikes me as misleading, rife with inaccuracies, and definitely a violation of our standards for reconstructed forms and proto-languages. We need to go through Drago's edits and either convert these into real, verified etymologies, or remove them.
The problem is that these edits are only a fraction of Drago's 19,672 edit count (12,311 separate pages)- so far, I've found just a few dozen. I tried searching for "Etymology" and "originally" together , but the sheer volume of legitimate occurrences has made it very slow going.
Would it be possible for a bot to tag all entries having 1) an edit by Drago that 2) includes the word "originally" (capitalized or non-capitalized)? If we could get all of these into a temporary maintenance category, we could then sift out the false positives and those that have been fixed, and then fix the rest as we have time. I have the references and background to do the Polynesian entries myself, but someone else will have to help with the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done- the slow way. It seemed like there were over a hundred of them, mostly in German entries. Thanks to anyone who helped. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)