Talk:bonfire

Etymology
Dear JohnC5, you might start a discussion here if you won't agree with additions made. But skipping them without discussion (for the second time) is not very polite. Referring to your own page for discussion seems to me a bit arrogant. Please state your objections here, so we can see if we can reach some kind of agreement. Otherwise, it might be appropriate to report a case of destructive behaviour.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A few points:
 * The text in the revision history, “Reverted edits by Otto S. Knottnerus. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.”, was not written by me. It is the standard (and inalterable) text created by the rollback tool which administrators have. It has been pointed out many times in the past that the text may appear glib, but this message is not a product of my arrogance.
 * The term is not “skipping”, but “reversion” or “rolling back”. Just an FYI.
 * Your addition do contain some interesting proposals, but they are intermingled with bad Indo-European reconstructions (“*bʰeh₂-, *bʰā- and *bʰel-”), wild analogies, unrelated information, and poor etymological writing style.
 * If you really want to have a debate about this, please present your argument in the wider forum of the Etymology scriptorium. I am not the only person whom you will need to convince.
 * — JohnC5 18:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I'll give up. Sorry to have blamed you for the automatic settings in the system (I'm used to wikipedia). As a continental historian and folklorist, the explanation of bonfire as bone-fire seems to me a blatant example of folk-etymology. But it would take me another day to prove my point here and present the alternatives the way they should have been presented. I did my bibliographical research - my doubts were supported by the literature I cited; the traditional etymology is not backed up by 20th-century research, and the main argument (a 15th-century glosse) has been falsified since long. Adams 1977 alternative 'woe fire' appears to the latest contribution to the discussion, though Liberman kept to the old idea in his Word Origins (2009). My alternative bon < 'white' seent to me completely in line with Welsh and Irish material. But i'll pass.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I really would like you to present this research on Wiktionary, but as it stands, the proposal is confusing and meandering. I feel that a good debate would help straighten it out. I don't want you to give up! — JohnC5 19:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, John, I'll give it a chance.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Use for a fire to dispose of non-political unwanted items
The current definition 2 has a strong implication that only politically unwanted items/people (banned books and heretics) are burnt in a bonfire. However, it is my experience that people use the word "bonfire" to describe a fire in which (for instance) garden waste is burnt, which doesn't really fit the implication of definition 2. Is it just me, or is this a common definition? If so, how can definition 2 be modified to make it clear that it's not just political waste that is burnt? --Muzer (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read: "unwanted" and "or". ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Rephrased. It was a bit odd. Equinox ◑ 19:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Controlled?
As the word is generally used, a fire ceases to be a bonfire if it is in a container such as a fireplace. So "controlled, but not in a container" might be better.24.108.18.81 20:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)