Talk:melange
Used outside Canada?[edit]
Is this word ever used outside of Canada? I use it all the time, but it always seems to baffle foreigners. --Bran
Usage[edit]
Yes, the word is often used correctly... However, it would seem that some people are a little obsessed with the fictional work Dune, which refers to a drug as mélange. — This unsigned comment was added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) at 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
RFV discussion[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
"(fiction) A fictional drug in Frank Herbert's science-fiction Dune series, used to lengthen life, flavor food, heighten awareness, probe the memories of one's ancestors, and induce prescience." --Yair rand 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- WT:CFI#Fictional universes. It needs citing outside of Herbet's works. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Moved from WT:RFD#melange --Yair rand 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- All the uses I can find for that sense on a quick couple of b.g.c. searches are within the context of the Dune universe. The closest I found to an independent use is a book about David Lynch, but even that is doing a kind of literary analysis of the Dune books. It's also not listed in Oxford's dictionary of science fiction (either the print or on-line edition), which I know has a network of die-hard sci-fi fans constantly combing for additional citations. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Fails. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Striking, per Mglovesfun (talk • contribs). —RuakhTALK 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Bill Moyers' usage[edit]
For the record, I am pretty sure I heard Bill Moyers earlier today on PBS on his Moyers & Company program in a long interview with Luis Alberto Urrea, use melange in a similar sense to the way it exists in Dune. Are we sure the term does not predate Dune? Or is Moyers (wittingly or unwittingly) coining a new word? Regardless, the apparent meaning of the usage in this instance seemed to be like the spice melange, only in an abstract sense, in other words, to mean any nearly priceless/possibly-mythical commodity being singularly sought out by the men of an age or geological setting. --72.173.160.58 21:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any chance you can give us the sentence he used? Equinox ◑ 21:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Will be in this (http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-between-two-worlds-life-on-the-border/) video (which I was only able to find via a link on another site! Other than Moyer's that is) --184.21.215.174 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- EDITED: So for example. In this (hypothetical) usage; the caterpillar fungus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_sinensis) as featured in Summer Pasture (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566405/) would be an example of "melange"; only except you would unlikely use the word itself as the usage is abstract, and caterpillar fungus is concrete.--184.21.215.174 09:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I originally posted this. In retrospect it's probably unclear the intended meaning. Moyer's could well have just meant a concoction of valuable resources, minerals etc., but if so it was not a very well articulated notion. A colourful way to say "or whatever" perhaps. Either way it's inclusive.--184.21.215.174 12:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
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.
Proposal to merge the pages for mélange and melange, as they're basically the same. They have the same meaning, same etymology, same pronunciation, etc.
- They're not the same. mélange has an entry for a French word on it; melange doesn't. However, since the English entry for mélange just says "alternative form of melange", I think we could delete the Etymology and Pronunciation sections, since they're redundant to the main entry. We should definitely delete the "Alternative forms" section. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Currently our Etymology sections match. Ideally they shouldn't: each should indicate dates of entry into English usage (and those presumably won't coincide). Perhaps one day we'll have that info; right now, we don't even have which word preceded the other (in English). Getting rid of the Etymology section is good in this case at this juncture, but doesn't represent the ideal and hopefully will be reverted with the addition of new info as it's available.
But I think both entries should have Pronunciation sections even now. Whereas etymology (to the extent we have it) is fairly clear from the combination of "…form of…" and the lemma's etymology, pronunciation is not. There's no way for a reader to know the pronunciation of a word merely from knowing that it's a form of another word.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)- Pronunciation shouldn't be deleted for alternative forms, only for alternative spellings. Alternative forms, by our definition, differ in more than just the spelling. —CodeCat 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is defined as "alternative form of". Perhaps it shouldn't be. Or perhaps whoever did that did it because (he or she thinks) it's not pronounced the same.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Namely, Circeus.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is an alternative spelling and should be listed as such. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's an
{{alternative spelling of}}template? I didn't know that back then. In fact I still didn't know until I read this conversation. Circeus (talk)
- This is defined as "alternative form of". Perhaps it shouldn't be. Or perhaps whoever did that did it because (he or she thinks) it's not pronounced the same.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pronunciation shouldn't be deleted for alternative forms, only for alternative spellings. Alternative forms, by our definition, differ in more than just the spelling. —CodeCat 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Currently our Etymology sections match. Ideally they shouldn't: each should indicate dates of entry into English usage (and those presumably won't coincide). Perhaps one day we'll have that info; right now, we don't even have which word preceded the other (in English). Getting rid of the Etymology section is good in this case at this juncture, but doesn't represent the ideal and hopefully will be reverted with the addition of new info as it's available.