User:KYPark/likely cognate with cognate

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

justice above all[edit]

Examples (What mattered at first?)

User:KYPark/likely cognate with cognate (originally in WT:ES)

Examples (Chuck Entz 2012-12-26)

It could easily have been ... deleted on the grounds of "No usable content given."

Examples (CodeCat 2012-12-30)

"Unscientific claims about etymologies are not useful to Wiktionary ... therefore liable to be deleted."

Examples (Dbfirs 2013-01-05)

"Just one good reason: this is ... not a forum for way-out ideas."

Examples (What matters after all)

"All self-contradiction!" --KYPark (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it just to move whatever to User:KYPark/likely cognate with cognate? rephrased --KYPark (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It could easily have been removed/deleted on the grounds of "No usable content given". This seems like a reasonable compromise. When you have something more than a bare list of three unrelated terms with no explanation, we can see about moving it back. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a place for anyone feeling free to talk anyway, not really needing any "compromise." Nonetheless I am supposed to be denied such freedom just unjustly, without any reasonable reason for removal explicitly said or warned. This looks like another usual personal attack on me, I suspect regrettably! --KYPark (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably CodeCat thought that you had not completed your question or comment. I think the same. What point were you trying to make or asking about? There is no campaign for personal attacks on you. Dbfirs 19:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That kind of attitude is exactly why people don't get along with you. You first come up with all kinds of ideas that disagree with all current research, and then expect people to take you seriously. And when people stop listening to you, you complain that they are censoring you. So let me make things clear. Unscientific claims about etymologies are not useful to Wiktionary as we will never, ever include them on Wiktionary. If you think that's censoring that's fine, but it's not going to change so it is not productive to Wiktionary and is therefore liable to be deleted. That is not censorship, that is just some of us being fed up trying to make you understand Wiktionary's purpose. So stop trying and stop wasting people's time. —CodeCat 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
In spite of Dbfirs's denial, you seem to have every good reason to get me toughly "censored" or bullied. "You first come up with all kinds of ideas that disagree with all current research," you said. "That kind of attitude is exactly why people don't get along with you." That kind of personal attack may be the worst in this collaborating community, you see. How is it possible at all for me to "disagree with all current research"? To say that so absolutely is simply to tell a lie, I fear, to be precise! --KYPark (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Just one good reason: this is a dictionary, not a forum for way-out ideas. Past research by experts has shown that superficial similarities don't always mean a common etymology. Wiktionary includes only etymologies for which there is some published evidence. Please don't take the rejection of your theories as censoring or bullying. Perhaps you could publish your suggestions elsewhere? Dbfirs 10:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


The knee may be akin to the queen. --KYPark (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain? Dbfirs 19:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Vitally, I'm in a position of learning, not selling or imposing my eccentric thesis. So I raise the above question to learn what the state of the art (or if you like "all current research" CodeCat mentioned above) is all about. What I know about it so far convinces me too little to do without questioning here. According to CodeCat and the like, there's little need to infer from the given but just refer to the manifest state of the art. This forum is mostly useless. But, etymology should not work that positive way, I fear. Also, explicit analytic formulae seem to prevent people from observing deep implicit etymology, if any.
German biegen (to bend) and wiegen (to rock) appear akin, however "all current research" may agree. You bend your arm to rock the cradle so that the two analytic motions are inherently merged. So may be both German verbs, sharing the same ancestor. All bodily joints, including elbows, knees, necks, hips, and vertebras, merge those two motions, biegen and wiegen, suggesting their likely kinship.
Rethink Latin Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 44: The parameter "5" is not used by this template., cubus (vertebra), cubitum (elbow), incubo (incubate, kneel down on eggs), and so on. Unhappy with English translation "lie down," I prefer "bend or kneel down" as the more explanatory, if not original, sense. The former can hardly explain the kinship among the above and other Latin cognates.
Latin cunae (cradle, nest for young birds), cuneus (wedge), cunnus (woman; cunt), and the like are less sure of kinship, which may sooner or later be getting surer and surer. The cunnus only recently made sense of woman above cunt, perhaps uniquely!
Isn't the woman metaphorically the cradle or nest for young lives? The scabbard or sheath widely makes sense of the vagina so that it relates to the wedge or dagger, possibly etymologically as well as semantically, however implicitly. Either is again worth a metaphor for a woman, however obscene.
English wife and the like may sound obscene when simply related to wave and the like, but not so when related to German Wiege (cradle) that rocks a baby in the belly, as suggested above.
It may be no accident that German Wiege (cradle), Wecke (wedge), Weib (woman; wife) spell almost as close as Latin cunae (cradle, nest for young birds), cuneus (wedge), cunnus (woman; cunt), respectively. Such may be the case with Ancient Greek κούνια (koúnia, cradle, swing), γωνία (gōnía, corner, angle)) (cf. γόνυ (gónu, knee)), γυνή (gunḗ, woman).
All these and however more may be just waste of time without open-minded curiosity and anti-positivism. A tool is under construction so as to show deep etymology better.
--KYPark (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that Wiktionary should follow the policy of all major dictionaries (and that of Wikipedia) in omitting original research that has not been peer-reviewed and published elsewhere. I'm sure you will find a more appropriate forum elsewhere for your "eccentric thesis". I expect there is a Wiktionary policy somewhere? There is much work to be done in improving the basic dictionary without looking for connections that might or might not exist between words. It's interesting to consider such possibilities, but, in many cases, experts have looked for evidence and not found sufficient to make a convincing claim. Dbfirs 12:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)