Talk:Lord

Context: Wicca
Someone obviously took the time to add this section and I'm sure there are some entries where Wiccan use so predominates as to deserve a separate treatment (cf. Scientology and "thetan"). That said, this entry isn't one of them. The Wiccan use is entirely subsumed into the general use of Lord to translate deities important to the faith or devotee ("Lord Krishna", "Lord Shiva", "my sweet Lord", et multa multa multa cetera). Leaving aside that our most reliable sources aren't going to list separate Wiccan treatment and there is no firm Wiccan terminology, we're attaching a great deal of undue weight to it until there is completely separate treatment of all such similar uses.

My personal opinion is that we can handle it with the general treatment provided. If a laundry list of common deities referenced as "Lord" or "the Lord" is desired, let's compose a list here first and then port it back to the main definition when it's solid enough that they aren't being distinguished. — LlywelynII  11:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:context versus template:label
User:Embryomystic switched over to this new template. I've seen the other around more. No dog in that fight, but was there a discussion and/or good reason for the change? — LlywelynII  12:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The two templates do the same thing, but using different syntax: with, you specify the language using lang=, as in  , while with  you specify it using the first paramter, as in   . The second style was developed because it requires less typing, and also prevents people from forgetting to set a language. I personally wouldn't bother switching individual uses of one to the other by hand, but I don't see any harm in it, either. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as long as it still does the links, category-additions, &c. and is considered completely interchangeable, there is no issue. Just checking. — LlywelynII  08:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Transliterations
User:Embryomystic also seems to have tried deleting the transliterations of the non-Latin-script languages. Don't do that. — LlywelynII  12:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Chinese
Zhǔ seems straightforward enough: it's a generic feudal "lord" used in a religious context. , on the other hand, is simply a name (similar to "God on High") that seems to have no real connection to this entry. Did it just get included as a common Chinese word for big-G God and should be removed? or does it do some service in translating YHWH/Adonai in Chinese editions of the Bible so that it is an appropriate inclusion? The whole makes me doubt the second one is the case, but Protestant translators can be zany sometimes. — LlywelynII  09:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, the characters' inclusion in the Japanese set although Jōtei probably has a different history and merits separate consideration. — LlywelynII  09:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Drighten
An editor was confused as to the inclusion of a see also to drighten. His reäction of blanking it was obviously in error, but an explanation here: first, it's included in the OED reference originally cited (which will be restored and no the OED online is not equivalent); second, it should certainly not be blanked from the page altogether: it's the original equivalent of lord before "breadkeeper" caught on and is therefore an early synonym; third, there might be more to it but I would think that the point the OED was getting at by including a vide was that they had just gotten done explaining that "breadkeeper" seems to have been a kind of Anglo-Saxon slang that caught on in Britain but not elsewhere. Drighten was the original and more common Germanic title and its development was linked as a point of linguistic comparison. — LlywelynII  08:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Also (less sure about this but seems plausible) in reference to the use of capital-L Lord to refer to God, His Kid, & al., that Drighten was the original such usage in English and that the early forms of Lord picked up that context as it replaced the former term elsewhere. — LlywelynII  08:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Words that are merely semantically related are not normally listed in the etymology sections. Is there an etymological connection between "drighten" and "lord", e.g. did "lord" displace "drighten"? (If there is, that information belongs in [[lord]], not [[Lord]].) Whether the OED mentions it or not is not particularly relevant. - -sche (discuss) 13:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained above and elsewhere at sources such as OED (which of course is relevant, with random internet commentors rather less so), Lord displaced Drighten in its particular sense of referring to the Boss Man Upstairs. Your edit was reverted, that reversion has been explained, take it to committee and stop the edit warring. — LlywelynII  16:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Baal
Seems worth somehow noting that Hadad's title was synonymous with Adon in the languages that gave rise to Judaism and the Abrahamic religions but not sure how to do it. The point being made is that the synonym has been lost in its translation into English because it was deliberately avoided in Hebrew around the time of Hosea. Maybe it's only possible via including Ugaritic and Phoenician in the translation section? but my long-dead Semitic languages isn't good enough to be certain that Adon/Baal overlap well enough... — LlywelynII  08:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)