Talk:eisteddfodau

What is that weird graph atop the citations? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a timeline and is supposed to show the reader when the word has been in use. What it actually shows is the dates of citations chosen by the contributor. By the way, Google books has one in Welsh a bit further back in 1822. SemperBlotto 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added it unto the Welsh section. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder why the title is in English and the text is in Welsh. SemperBlotto 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

eisteddfodau
(RfV tag was removed out-of-process, restored)

This plural of eisteddfod seems to have comparable usage (in English text) to the standard English plural eisteddfods. There are Welsh pronunciations here and at eisteddfod, belong in the Welsh language section (which is missing). This entry was fine a short while ago, now needs serious cleanup as well, including removal of POV comment re writers’ use of the standard English plural. Robert Ullmann 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, I consider thirty-six citations, all from durably archived sources, spanning 174 years (from 1831 unto 2005) to be ample verification of the use of a word. As such, I removed the RFV tag.


 * As for the usage notes, I assume that you do not object unto the first of the two, being as it merely explains why eisteddfodau is so common in English. The second usage note is also very reasonable, and not POV. It is a fact that many in Wales would cringe at or ridicule the use of eisteddfods and would consider it a sign of the writer’s ignorance of the correct plural, eisteddfodau (notice that I did not use any POV words such as correct or wrong in the usage notes, even though that is what I believe). I speak Welsh and I live in Wales; I know these things. Many people use Inuk as the singular of Inuit; doing so is a sign of cultural sensitivity. Ditto eisteddfodau. Face the facts and stop continuously seeking to undermine my contributions. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to undermine your contributions; just drag them back toward something resembling reality. The second note is extreme POV:


 * Use of eisteddfod’s alternative plural, “eisteddfods”, particularly in writing, may be considered to be a sign of ignorance of the etymologically consistent plural — and even wider Welsh culture — on the writer’s part.


 * Hardly. It is always correct to use the standard English plural, not a “sign of ignorance”. Instead of pushing your POV, trying to pretend the standard plural is wrong, say this:


 * The use of this plural is preferred by some writers and speakers over the standard English plural (eisteddfods) as it is accepted use and shows greater cultural sensitivity.


 * Which I have changed it to. (Also the grammar in the first note, “commonplace” is not comparable ;-).)


 * Other point: 36 (or whatever) citations is silly, pick the good ones (esp. the older), drop the others or put them on a citations subpage?


 * Final point: where is the Welsh language section? Seems like it would be very useful here? (And at eisteddfod.)


 * And let someone else remove rfv tags. Someone else will check it, record it as passed here, and remove the tag. Robert Ullmann 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The quotations have been moved to a subpage, modelled after listen. Cerealkiller13 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, your revision of the usage note is more POV than mine original is. The essential part of the original is: “may be considered” — this shows both that the forewarned outcome is a possibility, rather than a certainty, and that the outcome is a negative subjective reaction, not an objective grammatical flaw or some such thing. Whereäs the revised usage note states that eisteddfodau: 1 — “is accepted use”  and  2 — “shows greater cultural sensitivity”.  Some (namely those who most vehemently object unto the use of foreign plural forms) would not consider eisteddfodau to be acceptable in English (though admitedly, they are few and far between). Secondly, using the etymologically consistent plural form may not necessary show greater cultural sensitivity — it may just be a sign of pædantry (like my using ligatures here, there, and everywhere is not a sign of my sensitivity towards Roman culture, but rather of my pædantry). I was a bit hurried in my reply; in place of “doing so is a sign of cultural sensitivity”, I ought to have written “doing so is a sign that one is not wholly ignorant of the discussed culture”. However, these points are quite minor. I more object unto “over the standard English plural (eisteddfods)” — whilst there is nothing incorrect with this part, it does imply that eisteddfodau is a non-standard English plural — which it clearly is not, considering the frequency of its usage (as well as the rationale I gave on my talk page). I suggest that the usage note be rewritten:
 * Most writers, when in need of a plural for eisteddfod, opt for “eisteddfodau” over “eisteddfods”, at least in part out of a desire to appear culturally sensitive and to dispel any impressions which may be held by some that the writer is ignorant of the etymologically consistent plural.
 * Or something unto that effect. Please note that although I consider eisteddfods to be both ignorant and incorrect, I was not arguing that that is what ought to be written in the usage note. No allusions were made unto the correctness of either eisteddfods or eisteddfodau, only the impression and the reactions which the use of the former may evoke. I was not “trying to pretend the standard plural is wrong”.


 * Thanks for your correction of “commonplace” in the first usage note. Though I’ve accepted that change, I’ve changed “this” back unto “the” (as there is only one etymologically consistent plural form, and “this” implies that there are others), and I’ve reädded “far”, as doing so was no exaggeration (cf.: corgŵn, cymoedd).


 * A citations subpage is a good idea; I would have done it myself, if Cerealkiller13 had not beaten me unto it. I have added Welsh language sections unto both eisteddfod and eisteddfodau; I have also cleaned up the former. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you’ve raised no objections thereunto, I’ll go ahead and add the revised usage note. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —RuakhTALK 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)