Talk:encyclopedia

I cleaned up the entry, deleting unneeded words as well as some obvious and infantile phrases. --24.211.187.74 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bold 64.110.240.97 16:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"reference book", "reference work" and "encyclopedia"
Is reference book indeed a synonym for encyclopedia? If so, what is the relationship between reference book and reference work? According to Wikipedia, encyclopedia is one of the several kinds of reference works. Also, Wikipedia redirects reference book to reference work. --Daniel Polansky 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that reference book is a hyponym of encyclopedia rather than a synonym, since "reference books" include dictionaries, thesauruses, chronologies, treatises, and so on. A synonym of reference book would be reference work, but reference works also include papers (scientific papers, etc.). —Stephen 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So I understand it correctly. Thanks. --Daniel Polansky 13:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Here I found another pronunciation. Is it also acceptable? Ferike333 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

encyclopædia
Obsolete or still in somewhat use? Can't really be sayin' two things for one thing. Tony6ty4ur (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we aren't, are we? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect transliteration?
It says encyclopaedia is "an incorrect form of Ancient Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδείᾱ". If that were true, the same would apply to the words paedagogue, paediatrics, etc. Hmm ... would the British variants always be "incorrect" and the American ones always "correct"? There's another way of looking at this. When you transcribe something from one language to another and those languages have completely different alphabets, there's not always one "correct" way of transliterating. That is why you see variants of the phrase assalamu alaikum, for example, like assalamu alaykum or assalamu aleikum, which is a little less common. What I'm saying is that I don't know that any one of those variants is "correct" or "incorrect". We're dealing with different alphabets here.
 * The part that's incorrect is not the ae, but the fact that it is not encycliopaedia or encycliopedia, with an i after the l. Paedagogue, paediatrics are fine. There are multiple ways to transliterate Ancient Greek, but none of them allows the random deletion of an i representing a iota. — Eru·tuon 04:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You maybe misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say anything about an "io". If you ask me, the "ae" more closely resembles the "αι" in the Greek than the American "a". Also, you're confused about the roots of these words. They all use a variant of the same root word παῖς. So the same thing that applies to "encyclopaedia" would have to apply to "paedagogue" and "paediatrics" or else it doesn't apply to any of them. It's one or the other. And if you ask me, it's the latter. In any event, we could say both variants are acceptable, but I would never, ever say that the British variant is "incorrect" and the American one "correct".
 * No, you are the one who is misunderstanding. The entry does not say encyclopaedia is wrong for using ae. — Eru·tuon 04:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what it says. Did you give yourself a chance to even read what it actually says? It says, at the very beginning: "From New Latin encyclopaedia, an incorrect form of Ancient Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδείᾱ".


 * By the way, I do get your point about "encycliopedia" or "encycliopaedia". One wonders why "enkúklios" (ἐγκύκλιος) dropped the "i" sound and became "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopedia". That's not the point I was making, but you made that point and it's a fair point to make.


 * All I was saying is that between "encyclopedia" and "encyclopaedia", there's no way that "encyclopaedia" is less correct than "encyclopedia". It's sooner the other way around; that is, "encyclopaedia" more closely resembles the "ai" sound in παιδείᾱ (paideíā) than "encyclopedia". So if we're going to say they're both correct, that's one thing, but I don't see how anyone could conclude that "encyclopaedia" is incorrect, as it says there. I would at least say the British version more closely resembles the Greek, but I don't see how anyone could conclude that it is incorrect and that the American version is correct. At the very least, I think the British version (encyclopaedia) is just as correct as the American version (encyclopedia), although it might well be that it is more correct. Again, I would never, ever say that the British version (encyclopaedia) is incorrect and that the American version (encyclopedia) is correct, as it says there.
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Yes, you're right that ae as opposed to e is perfectly fine. But as I said, the etymology section is not commenting on the ae. It is commenting on the fact that the Greek was not transliterated as Latin, which would be the precise and correct transliteration based on the usual rules of Latinization of Greek words. — Eru·tuon 07:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I know what happened. We're both on the same page, we maybe just didn't realise it. You and I agree completely, then. I agree, "ae" is acceptable just like "e" and vice versa. Do you see what it says there, though? I wonder why someone wrote that the British version is incorrect. I wish I knew, because I always want to know what arguments people are making, although at the moment, I think our way of looking at it is correct. It's quite disturbing to me that it says "encyclopaedia" is "an incorrect form of Ancient Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδείᾱ" and I don't know why someone thinks that. 75.165.119.19 07:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. But again, it's not saying the British form is incorrect; it says "New Latin encyclopaedia" is incorrectly transliterated. See my last comment. I have explained how the Latin form is incorrect. It should be encyclius paedia, not encyclopaedia. — Eru·tuon 07:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)