Talk:Averroist

Cleanup debate

 * Note: the title of this section was previously [&#x5B;:averroist]].

This is marked as a noun, but the defninition seems to be defining a person - in which case (if it meets the CFI) shouldn't it be a proper noun with a capital letter? Thryduulf 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: capital letter: Yes. This is an old conversion-script error. Re: proper noun: No, it's a common noun (and for that matter an adjective). The definition rambles a bit and talks about the guy for whom the sect is named, but for "one of a sect" you can read "any one of a sect". (Unfortunately there's no good way to express this; actually including the "any" in the sense line would sound silly.) —Ruakh TALK 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would "a member of a sect" be better, or have I misinterpreted it? Thryduulf 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it would be better, but yes, you've interpreted it rightly. I've tried a different approach that I think might be simpler and clearer; let me know what you think. —Ruakh TALK 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's generally much clearer, but the phrase "a certain sect" seems very odd to me. It reads like "they belonged to a specific sect, but we aren't going to say which one". Thryduulf 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Any member of a particular sect of peripatetic philosophers that appeared in Italy before the restoration of learning."? (See also user:Msh210/specificity.)&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Thryduulf 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is ok now, then. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)