Talk:clay

QUESTION
Why has this sentence reverted ? what is wrong with the magazine called "Studio Potter" (online) that we cannot use it as a source if we are very clearly attributing it?

Studio Potter says: "Clay appears in Old English as claeg and means exactly the same thing it does today. To find the root for clay, we have to go back to the Indo-European root *glei- meaning to glue, paste, stick together." 

I paraphrased this last night as: " Clay comes from the word claeg in Old English, which means the same thing and is from the Indo-European root *glei which means to glue, paste, stick together. "

I think there is sufficient paraphrasing and attribution of source Goldenrowley 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! (Yes, I thought you were citing a book.)  The similiarity to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clay was what had me flummoxed.  I apologize for over-reacting on something that looked a little too perfect.  For now, I've reinstated your version.


 * Curiously, that writer cites the same dictionary as one used (albeit a different revision) on dictionary.com. Having gone full-circle now, I'm left wondering if you are allowed to use his copied text for a citation here.


 * --Connel MacKenzie 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The writer has some credentials with language, and used various sources not just one. History cannot be copyrighted. The only thing copyrightable is the wording/phrasing. I would just like to have an etymology sentence on clay, for a Wikipedia Pottery project. Goldenrowley 04:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, for your compelling and eloquent response. As a final question, then: didn't he have clæg not claeg?  --Connel MacKenzie 06:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * & Thank you for your revert. If you think so I do not know... thank you for your help! Goldenrowley 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 sources say clæg, so have added that word today. Goldenrowley 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)