Talk:connexion

Preferred by whom? Who actually uses this word? 141.155.35.92 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neal Stephenson. ;-) 128.122.253.212 02:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not preferred by anyone anymore: it's an archaic spelling of Connection, as suggested by a previous contributor. The assertion that the word is preferred by some because it's closer to the latin is almost totally irrelevant; 99.9% of people use the more modern for connection; it would be misleading to describe this word as anything other than archaic usage, simply because some people use it. Crispyhull 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On a different note; is this spelling currently used in the US?Crispyhull 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

or ? I would come down slightly in favour of archaic, it is not quite as strong; but then the word connexion is still understandable, and maybe used by some people still (though not very many). Obsolete implies that it is not understandable anymore or that it's never used. Any thoughts? 82.110.64.68 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Last headline I found in The Times using connexion was in November 1984; had been used regularly up until then, but in the preceding few years, almost exclusively in a geographical context (such as French connexion, Italian connexion, etc). The spelling was not used at all in Times headlines in 1985, and that's as far as the archive I have access to goes. Anybody able to come up with a later usage than November 1984?Crispyhull 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The OED does not consider it archaic, and neither do I - just as murther is a valid spelling for the more well known murder, burthen for burden, shew for show (the latter actually has been dumbed down in a way, because the one spelling now applies to various meanings for which it did not originally). Archaic should only apply to words who's meanings, or meanings of words, which no longer apply. Not spellings.--Amedeofelix 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it's UK either. herman Melville used that spelling and he was very much American.--Amedeofelix 16:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, this is not the OED. the word connexion is an archaic spelling of the word connection since it is no longer in widespread use. It is used on (very) rare occasion still, hence the word is not marked as obsolete. Use of the word archaic is not limited to the meanings of words - take a look at the discussion of the use of the word archaic in the Wiktionary glossary and you will find plenty of examples of archaic alternative spellings. For what it's worth, I agree with you about the US/UK thing; I believe the line in question should read simply "(archaic) Alternative spelling of connection". However I will be polite and not make the change until it has been discussed properly. It would be useful to have the Melville quote to demonstrate US use of the word.Crispyhull 12:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To add, being like the OED is not being the OED. It should aspire to being like...  By thge way shouldn't a thing be proven before adding it in strict terms? It should be proven to be archaic or to be exclusively UK rather than have to prove it isn't - that's like the old chestnut on proving God does not exist rather than placing the onus on believers to prove he/it does. I'll have to read Mobey Dick again to give you the exact quote...--Amedeofelix 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please tell me I'm wrong in my impression that you may consider the OED to be a dictionary of British English rather than ALL of the English language in all of it's variations history and continual development. If this place aspired to half of what the OED is it would be magnificent indeed...--Amedeofelix 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to issue about proof; yes you are quite right, it is very difficult to argue a case that something doesn't exist, but going through contemporary sources looking for recent uses of the word is a useful process. Looking through The Times Online for example, since July 1997 the word connection has been used 11970 times, whereas connexion has been used 78 times. The downward trend has been happening for some time. From the Times archive I mentioned previously, I've managed to do a more thorough search and found that the breakthrough year for connection was 1985 (I'm assuming their style guide may have changed to prefer the word connection):
 * {| border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5


 * Yr
 * connexion
 * connection
 * 1945
 * 1342
 * 61
 * 1950
 * 1549
 * 163
 * 1955
 * 1559
 * 170
 * 1960
 * 1724
 * 384
 * 1965
 * 1205
 * 342
 * 1970
 * 1163
 * 302
 * 1975
 * 1029
 * 211
 * 1980
 * 882
 * 463
 * 1981
 * 895
 * 424
 * 1982
 * 652
 * 294
 * 1983
 * 752
 * 290
 * 1984
 * 664
 * 477
 * 1985
 * 50
 * 1147
 * 1997-2007 Av per yr
 * 7.8
 * 1197.0
 * }
 * 290
 * 1984
 * 664
 * 477
 * 1985
 * 50
 * 1147
 * 1997-2007 Av per yr
 * 7.8
 * 1197.0
 * }
 * 7.8
 * 1197.0
 * }


 * With regards to your (apparently) sarcastic comments comparing Wiktionary with the OED, I agree that the OED is a fantastic book with lofty ideals, however it is supported by an organisation with considerable financial backing. Wiktionary is quite different, and will have a few quirks; nevertheless we could learn much from their calm and civil approach to academic enquiry, rather than emulating the usual level of, what passes for, debate on the internet.


 * I don't know what you're getting at when you think I suggested the OED is UK English only. I neither said, implied nor meant that.  I merely (politely) asked you to supply a useful quotation to illustrate a US use of the word.


 * I apologise if you think I have been rude to you, that was not my intention.Crispyhull 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back with the reference, unless someone beats me to it. It's OK no apology necessary, although I thank you all the same not to be churlish, I was more nonplussed than put out at your response. I don't know if Wiki ever can be fully rigourous academically the way Britannia or the OED are, but I'd like to think it's at least the aim... ;-) --Amedeofelix 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, lifting content from the OED (and removing content that's not in the OED) doesn't make us "rigorous academically", it makes us copyright violators. Secondly, while the OED does try to cover U.S. usages, it doesn't always do a good job. (One example of this — admittedly one of the more extreme examples I've come across — is COME v. B. 3. e., which is a very common construction in U.S. English, but which the OED marks with a dagger, meaning "obsolete".) Thirdly, the OED actually doesn't say anything about either spelling in this case; it simply has a CONNEXION, CONNECTION entry — and all of its cites after 1940 use connection. —RuakhTALK 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Now YOU ARE being rude and obtuse! I never said anything had to be "lifted" from anywhere! (exclamations very much meant, because you really annoy me now with your condescending tone) A source like the OED simply carries lots of weight. My Shorter OED simply does not list it as obsolete, nor as a regional variant. It's also absolute rubbish to say that the OED doesn't take full account of US usage. Come I am not familiar with, but I happen to be familiar with another entry which is the verbal form of loan, which is marked as obscolete but also described as still being in use in the US - British English dropped that in favour of lend. Again it's a meaning which has become obscolete in my example not a spelling. Could it be something to do with an overly AMerican bent to this site perhaps, considering the US has tried at times to deliberately alter spellings? (By the way I know this because I am actually American, and know why the idiocy of spellings like tire (for the thing on the outside of a wheel), color, valor, and center came into being.) --Amedeofelix 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my tone came off as condescending; that wasn't my intent. But when you removed the "archaic" and "UK" tags, all your edit summary said was "The Oxford English Dictionary does not refer to this spelling as either archaic or UK only." If what you really meant was "I don't think this spelling is archaic or UK only, and I checked the OED, which doesn't label it archaic or UK only, so I'm removing these tags until someone can demonstrate their validity", then you should have said that. The edit summary you gave made it sound like your intent really was to steal content from the OED.


 * I'm sorry to. Clearly a misunderstanding here.  I only ever meant to use the OED as mere example/precedent, and not to say it should be copied from their entry.  I did, and still do object to a valid spelling being labelled archaic.  Clearer I hope... --Amedeofelix 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "It's also absolute rubbish to say that the OED doesn't take full account of US usage. Come I am not familiar with, but I happen to be familiar with another entry which is the verbal form of loan, which is marked as obscolete but also described as still being in use in the US - British English dropped that in favour of lend.": I don't understand. I did acknowledge that the OED tries to cover U.S. usages, but I gave an example of a place where it fails; I did not mean to suggest that it never succeeds, only that it's not terribly reliable. (Incidentally, while the OED doesn't explicitly tag either spelling as "archaic" or "UK", it does say that U.S. dictionaries have preferred connection since Webster's 1828, and proceeds to say that connexion was more widely used in England until the mid-twentienth century, when connection became more common. So while the OED itself is giving a longer, much more nuanced usage note, the distilled-to-a-sense-label version would indeed be something like "archaic, UK".)


 * —RuakhTALK 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tire was actually the original spelling; color, valor, and center can all be found in Shakespeare. In the U.S., the -xion endings dropped out a long time ago; in Webster's 3rd (1961), connexion is labeled "Chiefly Brit."  In Britain, it's pretty safe to regard it as "dated," not archaic (25 years ago doesn't qualify as "archaic.")  Therefore, the most appropriate label is probably (UK, dated).  British dictionaries don't attempt to cover U.S. spelling usage, but they often cover U.S. vocabulary usage---e.g. Oxford dictionaries normally label PETROL Brit. and GASOLINE N. Amer.  JackLumber 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is an overly American bent to this site, it is only because the contributors to it make it so. Speaking as UK English speaker, the beauty of Wiktionary et al. is that anybody can contribute to the site and discuss their contributions.  There are pros & cons to this approach just as there are with a more gatekeepered system like the OED.  Wiktionary does have its own conventions that seem to be ignored by many people who think it should be more like Dictionary X; See the Glossary page for a full discussion of what Wiktionary as an organism thinks about these words.  To summarise: Obsolete - words no longer in use; Archaic - words no longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts; Unfashionable/dated - words still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people.  In this context 'Archaic' perfectly summarises the use of the word connexion.  There is a subtle nuance intended by the term dated, it is not simply a continuum from obsolete through archaic to dated.  I don't believe there is a young/old divide on the word; across the board it is used very rarely now.  And there is certainly no time limit of 25 years implied.
 * For what it's worth Amedeofelix, you do seem to have taken offence at something I previously wrote and you have not had the courtesy to explain what it was. I don't believe I was rude to you, but it is possible that I may have done so inadvertently. This discussion could be interesting, but is becoming dull through use of sarcasm and anger.Crispyhull 10:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not any of your responses I was annoyed at but Ruakh's, who's response was overly blunt and verging on insulting. What many say here makes perfect sense, and I can even agree with much of what is said. I am not, and never said, this should be the OED or any particular dictionary, but it can sure take a leaf out of the OED's book on being rigorous. I still see no reason for a particular listing such as labelling this particular word "archaic" without hard proof of that, and a very strong precedent on what "archaic" means in terms of etymology. Logic would have no such label placed until it is proven rather than having it until it is proven not to be - guilty ‘til proven innocent is the way that feels. It gets to seem like I am labouring a point, but I feel this has relevance for the whole site. I thank the above people for your responses because I found them very interseting. --Amedeofelix 10:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter 2 - The Carpet-Bag, "Moving on, I at last came to a dim sort of light not far from the docks, and heard a forlorn creaking in the air; and looking up, saw swinging over the door with a white painting upon it, faintly representing a tall straight jet of misty spray, and these words underneath—'The Spouter Inn: Peter Coffin.' Coffin?—Spouter?—Rather ominous in that particular connexion, thought I..." --Amedeofelix 10:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Current uses of word: ; ; ; ; ; scholar searching on Google ... To say it's not used is absurd. There are plenty of truly archaic words, which have no meaning and are never used except perhaps in poetry when a rhyme is required, but this is not one. I can't see the proof.  There is also a matter of what is correct, and reflects teh true history of a word.  The UK propensity to use the French -ise suffix is no less wrong simply because it is popular, just as the US habit of using the Latin/English -ize for ALL uses is also wrong (e.g. a wholly French word like fantasy should become fantasise not fantasize).  Connexion is the truer spelling for the word's history than connection.--Amedeofelix 09:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of this conversation now. You seem to totally ignore the Wiktionary guidance (from the glossary) on the use of the words Archaic and Obsolete. For the last time, Archaic does not indicate that a word is not used any more, merely that it is rarely used. Obsolete would be used when it is no longer used.  Compared to its use in the past, and compared with the growth in use of its replacement, connection, archaic seems a fair description. I will no longer contribute to this strand, since you seem to be intent on ignoring Wiktionary guidance, and I fear I maybe feeding a troll.Crispyhull 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we need to define the word guidance too then? It seems to me that guidance is just what the definition of the words is - i.e. it is not a rule or commandment.  Thou shalt not consider archaic to mean anything other than that defined by the holy Wiki.  That seems to be the gist of your statement here, and as for your use of that silly web geek term...  The less said the better really.  Anyhow the point is that I disagree with the usage of the term archaic - do you think "guidance" forbids me from doing so?  I disagree and I say why I disagree.  Isn't that the very basis for debate?  It's not like I've just been saying like a 5 year old "It is (or isn't) so there!" --Amedeofelix 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way I think dated would be more sensible than archaic. To be honest I'd sooner have nothing but dated fits way better than archaic.--Amedeofelix 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC) To add to this I'd point out that reading the Wiki definitions of oscolete, archaic and dated that under those terms neither obscolete nor even archaic would seem to apply.  This is not a thee and thou sort of thing... --Amedeofelix 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but after you comments about Ruakh, I agree you are trolling. Reading all of the above, I see no genuine concern that you have raised, only specious circumlocution.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sorry, but..." My thoughts and feelings on this are genuine, and as I have said I provided reasoning for why I take the position I do.  You chose to label my dissent as "trolling" and thus belittle it.  My dispute with Ruakh was down to the tone took in doing so.  Why should that dispute, which got resolved in any case if you take the trouble to read this page thoroughly, so concern you? --Amedeofelix 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to etymology, fantasize should be spelled fantasize, because the word fantasize is NOT a gallicism per se, but it's English fantasy + -ize; whether fantasy is French or not is irrelevant: The stem is transparent. On the other hand, for example, the word realize should be spelled realise, because it's truly a Gallicism. JackLumber 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (comment from JackLumber above restored, original -- Cynewulf 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

I had to edit it, because nobody has bothered to address my direct response to the dogmatic following of the Wiki "guidelines" as if they are laws. Well according to that measure this word can't be archaic, but at most dated. If you read the guidelines for archaic it pretty clearly states that it for terms simply not used at all in common parlance such as thee and thou. This is not that, and whilst I don't think it is dated either, not being as period expression such as fab or daddy'o, twenty-three skidoo, etc. it's far far better than labelling it something it most certainly is not. It's an old spelling, the original, but it's not an out of date word. The guidelines I would go on to add do NOT imply that spellings may be either archaic or dated - there is quite simply no mention in the holy guidelines to that effect. --Amedeofelix 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is specious. The glossary does not explicitly say that archaic applies to spellings, but also doesn't say anything that could suggest it doesn't. —RuakhTALK 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You simply saying my argument is specious is an argument?! Come one.  As I said I don't think guidance is a thing to be taken as dogma, but since you and others here take it so seriously I task you to look at it closely, and tell me exactly how a spelling variation is the same thing as words like thee thou and thine.  Those are actual different words, with different history from the modern you.  This is not such a case.  The word is the same in this case, but the spelling is different in the same exact sense as colour and color. I defy you to prove other. --Amedeofelix 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a very big difference between thou/thine and connexion: the former are entire archaic words, while the latter is only an archaic spelling of a current word. What's your point? —RuakhTALK 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is my point not clear to you? Either we take by omission of mentioning spelling in the archaic "guidane" that it does not apply in such cases, or it is a metter completely for debate.  In the first case it would not belong for sure, and in the second it should be proven before labelling it so. So what is not clear about that? If we are not to follow the "guidlines" word for word then I suggest people not harp on about them, and if it is a matter for debate rather than a simple matter of following some Wiki rule then as I said a thing should be proven to be something rather than proven not to be.  Bleedin' elementary logic that's all. --Amedeofelix 13:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "Either we take by omission of mentioning spelling in the archaic 'guidane' that it does not apply in such cases, or it is a metter completely for debate.": You're saying that it's completely up for debate whether "No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts (such as Bible translations) and generally understood (but rarely used) by educated people" would describe a spelling that's no longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts nd generally understood by educated people? That makes no sense to me. Do you actually believe that, or do you just feel so strongly that this spelling shouldn't be marked "archaic" that you're willing to make any argument to that end? —RuakhTALK 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This gets more bizarre by the minute from my perspective. "...understood (but rarely used) by educated people..."???  Firstly, have you got stats that show the spelling to be neither used by common nor "educated" people?  I think my little search bringing up academic texts shows that it is used by "educated" people.  Secondly, yes omission is important if you are to treat guidance as ruling.  A rule must spell things out clearly.  So what is the guidance for you then?  Is it a hard and fast system of rules that must be followed?  If so I would say that anything not spelled out doesn't count.  I feel strongly on the issue that archaic applies to a word/meaning, and frankly the "guidelines" do not disabuse me of that feeling.  When I looked at them they enforced those feelings if anything, and when I looked as dated it at least looked plausible unlike archaic's description which did not. --Amedeofelix 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * O.K., let's try to establish some common ground here. Firstly, obviously (?) the primary goal of Wiktionary is to be a useful multilingual dictionary. The reason we have archaic labels at all is that it's useful to the readers to know when something is archaic, so they'll know that it's generally a bad idea to use it unless they're deliberately trying to sound old-fashioned — not so bad an idea as if the thing were obsolete, but worse an idea than if the thing were merely dated — and so that when they encounter it, they'll be able to draw appropriate inferences about the text or utterance. I would argue that this information is useful whether the thing is a word, a specific sense of a word, a specific construal of a word, a specific spelling of a word, a specific pronunciation of a word, a specific inflection (conjugation/declension) of a word, or just about any other bit of information we include.


 * Secondly, note that Appendix:Glossary is part of Wiktionary. Therefore, like any part of Wiktionary, it is subject to collective editing and continual improvement — but insofar as it exists, it is absolutely definitive: when we describe something as "archaic", we link to Appendix:Glossary to explain what we mean by that. And what we mean by it is "No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts (such as Bible translations) and generally understood (but rarely used) by educated people." It seems very clear to me that that description can describe any of the aforementioned things (words, senses, construals, spelling, pronunciations, etc.), but if you want to argue that something about that description makes it able to describe words and senses but unable to describe spellings, I'm willing to listen to your justification.


 * (Note: None of this comment is evidence that connexion, specifically, is an archaic spelling; only that there can exist such a thing as an archaic spelling, and that we should label archaic spellings as such. I hope to convince you of that much, and then we can examine the evidence and determine whether connexion itself is an archaic spelling.)


 * —RuakhTALK 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, to start a new line of thinking then... What is it to be archaic? For instance how long would a word (meaning, spelling or any sense) have to be out of use in the wider context to be considered archaic? I accept that connection is the norm just as say Windows is the norm as opposed to MacOS, but here's the nub - if it has only become so in modern times is the outmoded version archaic or merely out of fashion? What really defines archaic? It seems bizarre to me to call anything that has fallen out of common fairly recently, in historical terms, use as such. Quite frankly I think a description of something like "uncommon" (that doesn't quite fit the bill I know, it's just a first thought) would be a better descriptive - more helpful. --Amedeofelix 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So I take it that you now agree with my above argument that a spelling can be archaic, but are arguing only that connexion has not been out of common use long enough to be considered "archaic"? If so, I think you might be right; and especially, the fact that it's been used in both the U.S. and the U.K., and lasted a lot longer in one than the other, is hard to distill into a succinct sense label. I think it might be best to just label it with a usage note explaining roughly when it went out of fashion where; would that be acceptable to everyone? (Of course, then we have to craft a usage note we all can consent to — I'd suggest something like "This spelling is mostly archaic in the United States, growing increasingly infrequent over the past two centuries. In the United Kingdom the spelling is mostly dated, having remained in common use until the mid-twentieth century, and continuing to be used by such notable publications as The Times until much more recently. The spelling is also dated or archaic elsewhere in the English-speaking world." — but at least a usage note is easier to craft collaboratively over time, in true wiki fashion.) —RuakhTALK 04:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That idea, of "rare", seems like a very logical description. It is more descriptive I think - something which defines an "uncommon" word, spelling or usage.  Very nicely conceived. --Amedeofelix 10:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

... and getting back to the original question that started all this ... the British Methodist Church still uses the old spelling connexion (though admittedly for historical reasons) ... but I think the suggested usage note is an excellent idea.  D b f  i  r  s   07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, to weigh in on this debate--first in months--I'll point out that Historical Journal (a British history academic periodical) mandates or allows the spelling "connexion," as least as late as 1990. "Saye's importance was built upon his network of connexions." Mark Kishlansky, "Saye What?" Historical Journal 33, no. 4 (1990): 918. My point is, I don't think it's either archaic or obsolete if contemporary scholarship is using it outside of quotations.69.94.192.147 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To make special note of how connexion is used in a particular field, connexion seems to be a popular spelling in the field of philosophy. Connexion can be found in the writing of many Enlightenment-era English philosophers, but also in the writings of thinkers who published between the late 19th century and the mid-twentieth. Bertrand Russell, for example, used connexion, as does many of the translators of Frege and Wittgenstein from German. I've always found it very common in philosophy, though without any particular reason. Smeggysmeg (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not obsolete?
An anonymous editor changed from obsolete spelling to alternative spelling. In my experience it is not a current (i.e. 21st century) alternative spelling, it would be a spelling mistake in 21st century English. Is this used in 21st century English in any English-speaking countries? If so which one(s)? Certainly not the UK. Admittedly it has a lot of relatively recent usage (see above, figures look pretty legit). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)