Talk:claviform

Update to the etymology section
erm, why bother to use the template just to generate italics? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not "just to generate italics". m semantically marks the word as a mention and as Latin (see w:Template:Lang). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * but in that case it’s already been marked earlier by in the preceding sentence. Is there any particular benefit in marking the same word twice, if that’s all the template is doing? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mm, der does not have a force field that extends beyond the double curly brackets. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Every occurrence of a term in an etymology section has to be separately marked even if the very same term has been marked previously? I’m still not seeing what the utility of this is. Do explain further. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The computers don't know. What about the following Navajo text? Wiktionary has code that changes the default font for Navajo text, but if you don't declare that text is Navajo, nothing will happen.
 * Achʼííʼ bitsʼániʼnísą́  silį́į́ʼ.
 * Achʼííʼ bitsʼániʼnísą́ ńtʼiʼ łóód silį́į́ʼ.
 * Nothing special like that has been done for Latin AFAIK, but it's good practice anyway.
 * —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I see that there’s a use if some other script is involved (and I use to ensure that Greek letters are properly displayed), but I’m still not seeing any advantage to doing this for ordinary Latin letters. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As above, it's good practice. There's no advantage to human eyes. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I see that there’s a use if some other script is involved (and I use to ensure that Greek letters are properly displayed), but I’m still not seeing any advantage to doing this for ordinary Latin letters. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As above, it's good practice. There's no advantage to human eyes. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's also good to use the template and thus tag the language for better accessibility to people who use screen readers, which can (if they're good screen readers) read the text according to what language it is. In a case like this, where the word is already mentioned and linked and is not even being linked, I wouldn't fault anyone for mentioning a word the quick/easy way with just '' instead of with a blank parameter (there are only so many best practices people can remember, and cognitive load is a thing, as a few other editors are fond of saying), but if someone else comes along and templatizes it, that's an improvement, a standardization. - -sche (discuss) 06:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * On a different note, I was tempted to change ety 2 and 3 to

From, from  +  (equivalent to , ). and From, from (either from , or directly from its  ) +  (equivalent to , ). i.e. tweaking them to follow ety 1 in pointing to the Latin compound, on the theory that all three are probably all from of on the model of Latin claviformis, which is attested early (1670s, 1700s) and glossed in English as club-shaped since at least 1810, nailed-shaped since at least 1821, and key-shaped [in a French glossary] since at least the 1840s, while the earliest English attestations of claviform in any sense are from the 1810s, AFAICT. However, I decided the update could wait until after the word is done being featured, and I'm also not sure if or how we could tell the difference between "word formed in Latin from X and Y" and "word formed in English from the Latin elements X and Y, corresponding to the previously existing Latin compound XY". - -sche (discuss) 06:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't repeat the format of etymology 1 for etymologies 2 and 3 because I only have access to the OED, and it doesn't provide evidence of the Latin word clāvifōrmis meaning either "nail-shaped" or "key-shaped". However, if you have located such evidence, please go ahead. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)