Talk:knowledge

love the encyclopedia, but the dictionary dosn't seem to work. Knowledge definition is quirky and not really accurate. Not sure that this project is worth the candle67.22.135.217 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's got better since 2006 La más guay (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

UK taxi drivers
Perhaps this is worth a mention somehow (from Wikipedia): "The taxicab driver is required to be able to decide routes immediately in response to a passenger's request or traffic conditions ... Consequently, the 'Knowledge of London' Examination System, informally known as The Knowledge, is the in-depth study of a number of pre-set London street routes and places of interest that taxicab drivers in that city must complete to obtain a licence to operate a black cab." Equinox ◑ 10:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle English spellings
I removed the following from the list of alt forms, because they do not appear to meet CFI as modern English words, though each has at least one (though often no more than one) attestation in Middle English: cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulach/kneuelich/kneuleche/kneuliche/knouelache/knouelich (only mentioned in one dictionary), knoulegge, knoulecche, knouliche, knouelech, knowlesche. I left some relatively more common alternative spellings in the list even though they, too, may be ME-only. - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

German Word
The German word under Translations is listed as Kenntnis (neuter). Isn't Kenntnis actually feminine? --Infinitum11 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

uncountable noun
Knowledge is an uncountable noun, so it is never used in the plural. There is no word like knowledges. (see dictionaries like cambidge, collins, merriam-webster, britannica, vocabulary, macmillan ...) or translator like (google, deepl, linguee, leo).


 * Proof of plural is here: Equinox ◑ 17:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you have a better source like that, because every known dictionary out there (see above) do not know about knowledges or explicitly explain why there is no plural form of it.
 * Citing actual published usage is more authoritative than citing a dictionary, if we're operating under descriptivism rather than prescriptivism. Anyway, the entry already states that this term is usually uncountable. We give two quotations for countable sense 9, both from the 1600s. But the plural is clearly being used to this day, especially in fields like critical theory. 70.172.194.25 17:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, we are a dictionary, and we have the word. You're making the common error of confusing "I personally don't like this word!" with "this isn't a word!". Equinox ◑ 17:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with anything personal. English is not even my main language. I just stumbled across it because no dictionary or translator knows this word or explicitly explain why there is no plural form of it. So there must be something wrong with it. Perhaps many people confuse it in their everyday language with the word acknowledges, which does exist. But that does not make it right. 77.1.171.206 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Those dictionaries are lacking if they omit the plural. To be fair, in the vast majority of usage that an ESL reader would encounter, knowledge is uncountable. But historical use (as demonstrated by the quote) and specialized academic use (as seen in Equinox's link) still count. I'm very certain that the sociologists who use it are not just confusing the word with acknowledges, nor is that usage restricted to non-native speakers; they are explicitly trying to make a point about how different groups have different methods of reaching truth, etc. A few examples of contemporary academics who have used the plural, and appear to be native English speakers, include ,  , and  . 70.172.194.25 18:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean ALL dictionaries out there (besides this) are lacking if they omit the plural. So the last proof of this word is the 17th century. Who informs all the reputable dictionary publishers out there, our children are taught wrong in school. Please do not misunderstand, I am open to learn something new, but please with good sources and not misspellings or outdated spelling from the 17th century or individual people who use the word incorrectly, that can't be proof and is not a source citation. So it would be nice if you could show me a dictionary that has the word knowledges in it. Even if I write the word here, it is marked in red for me with the browser language tool and deepl.com. See cambridge dictionary, collins dictionary, merriam-webster dictionary, britannica dictionary, vocabulary dictionary, macmillan dictionary, un-countable Noun, oxford dictionary, Plural of knowledge, Knowledges or Knowledge?, itaslki, hinative ... and so on. But I think if you had found a dictionary that knew this word, you would have linked it here long ago. 77.1.171.206 18:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You fundamentally don't seem to understand that dictionaries exist to describe how words are used. We've already given you ample evidence that the word knowledges is in use (both historically and in specialized academic contexts today). It's not just used by the few individuals I mentioned either; it only takes a quick search on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the Internet Archive to find probably hundreds of articles and books that use the term, across multiple centuries. Whether or not other dictionaries include it is irrelevant to us, as is whether your spellchecker underlines it. That just shows that those sources aren't perfect. Conversely, it also turns out very frequently that dictionaries include words that don't exist at all, see Appendix:English dictionary-only terms.
 * If literally the only argument you will accept is that other dictionaries mention it, then I have it on good authority that "The OED on CD, version 4.1 (Oxford University Press, 1987) reports 18 quotations containing the plural of knowledge", although it classifies the plural form as obsolete. Given the reemerging use in sociology from the late 1980s onward, it's clearly no longer obsolete in academia, but it may be regarded as jargon. Unfortunately, I don't have access to check OED. Volume 8 seems to be conspicuously missing from the Internet Archive's copy of the 2nd edition OED (or rather, they mislabel volume 13 as volume 8).
 * Btw, I don't know why you would believe it if the OED listed a bunch of quotations, but not if you can find them for yourself in published, copyedited works. It's not like the OED owns the English language, even if they generally do a good job of documenting it. 70.172.194.25 19:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)