Talk:قادوس

MSA label
Hello again ! I do understand the convenience of using AjaxEdit, but one of its main culprits is the inability to add edit summaries, which are especially desirable when it comes to potential disputed deletions, more so for an admin (congrats for that btw). Is it that you don't agree that قادوس refers to hoppers only via a modern translation; hence MSA, or that you oppose the use of MSA as a label in general? Please let me know why both ways. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason is that before Modern Standard Arabic there weren’t industrial machines. Another is the obscurity of that abbreviation, which can be fixed in Module:labels/data/subvarieties though, making it expand and link. There is the label “modern” though used often without reproach, but again it is obvious here. Fay Freak (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could be "inferred" from the context, but I don't think this eliminates the need for a label. It can still be useful for readers in many ways, one of which, e.g., is knowing the linguistic term for this very modern register of standard arabic. By this logic, most labels would end up deemed redundant: A transitive verb with an example sentence underneath would dispense with . See where this goes? Should I implement the fix, whould you still think it's inappropriate? Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, you found an instance of the . But even the transitivity labels I use only very occasionally, especially when the English verbs to gloss are ambigious. I haven’t removed it, seeing your edit before Fenakhay, I was tempted to implement the label. But there is a problem with our lacking corpora respectively classical reading experience so we use to not know from which age something is attested, so while theoretically useful, I have doubts what the category “Modern Standard Arabic” will contain. Fay Freak (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the hasty reply at first, I didn't notice it isn't Fenakhay. I have to admit it's a clever citation of Sorites there, emphasizing a continuum between implicity and explicity along which redundancy lies with different degrees. Just like anything else, we'd have to critically appraise an arbitrary cut-off. In this case, from a pragmatic approach, and being an inclusionist, I'd say that we probably shouldn't worry much about redundancy so long as it doesn't start to hinder typical use of the dictionary and so long as there seems to be some benefit that outweighs the (residual) harm. I can think of obvious examples as to what such cat would contain; namely translations of modern technical artefacts (e.g. هاتف، تلفاز، شطيرة). However, we can still direct users to only apply the label cautiously, corroborated e.g. with etymologies for either the Arabic word or its foreign source. Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Sorry for not leaving a summary. I've removed the label because it is unnecessary and ambiguous at the same time. Machines are a modern invention, so this term doesn't warrant a label in my opinion. Though, you can label it as if you wish so. — Fenakhay ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Technically what is it even
I had doubts about the definition(s) from the beginning and found I formulated too casuistically. So, can we abstract the meaning, can we get the gist out of the word, that encompasses what the word always means? A scoop or bucket of a mill and a hopper all conduct something so they are conduits. If the meaning of a hopper is one part of a longer abstraction then there is no room for labels. is an expert in that art of course, but this may be doable by others. Fay Freak (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do share your concerns here regarding the multiplicity of glosses insofar as some of them don't have any incremental epistemological value. Using as a more abstract gloss is a good start. Yet, to argue that a concrete meaning "shouldn't" be distinct as long as it's an extension, in the linguistic sense, of an abstract concept is a bit of a realist position (vs. a Nominalist one). Linguistic senses are product of convention and attestation, so if a sense's field of application seems to be particularly used in relatively higher proportion, it's worth a separate def line, irrespective of the ability to logically relate to another. Long story short, I agree we should shorten the first def line to a more abstract gloss, but I don't think all the def lines should be reduced to that Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)