Talk:linnupiim

Why exactly two of the provided definitions have been removed?
1. Sõnaveeb is correctly provided source. That very same source has it under "mesindus leksikoon", that "linnupiim" in Estonian is equivalent to the "Royal jelly" in English. Note that synonym for "mesilane" is "mesilind" (whence the association with the "bird") - although, it is figurative and poetic, exist also "mesilinnupiim", but it's much less used.

2. There are no entry in the etymological dictionary for "linnupiim” (as it seems usual with the compounds) - however, there are respective individual entries for each: "lind” and "piim". Is there point of adding it under the given article (for leading to nonexistent site), rather than under the articles about the respective stems of the compound?

3. Crop milk sense seems to have limited presence in dictionaries, however it is fairly widely known and used term for the consept and makes presence in several ornithological literature through out the decades (in particular, when describing the doves - merely for the doves being locally present species, unlike penguins). Furthermore, the term have factually preferred usage among various speakers. An example of using the term in an article that was found rather quickly: https://www.eoy.ee/turteltuvi/artiklid/linnupiimast-nii-ja-teisiti

There's also synonym of "pugupiim”(now recommended technical term in the standard language over the one here) and hyponym of "tuvipiim" (that one having fixed association with the doves, presumably on the obvious reasons).

Now some ranting:

Regardless, if the dictionary's function is to describe the vocabulary, which does have regular presence in the language, in the common literary language in that - I much fail do see, for why that one should not be included in here. Even more so, if the term is more restricted to particular sociolects, dialects or regions, and for a someone whom is going to end up meeting the term in the literature and is expecting to find it's description in the dictionary - it should be removed from here why exactly? E

Either that, or the current "representing then't really "Estonian as whole in reality language", which includes it's sociolects, ects, ,a"toddler's tounge", "poetic language", archaisms nd slainstead ngs - but it's the "Standardized Estonian literary all togethere” instead, itseparticular lf just a variety of thn language, and the isocode should be redefined accordingofficial ly to the "et-ekk" to better align and represent it's much denser restrictiveness, and to avoid future over the matter, which isn't even pointed out anywhereconfusions).

Another mention worthy reminder here is following: "simple googling" isn't sufficient to confirm, especially to disconfirm, for how great the presence and usage of one or another term in the actuality is.

The given case here is fairly good example of that (confirmation) bias, where particular confectionery gets simply hugely over promoted via trade and ads, whereas in parallel the senses for the plant, royal jelly, and bird's crop milk have rather limited usage even in the actual daily language, simply for their fairly high specificness - and then additionally quite well ducked within all of the query results. Nonetheless this still doesn't mean that the later terms do not have actual usages, neither that Estonians are absolutely crazy about the candy and throwing it's name into every other phrase. furthermore, traders tend to have the interest for promoting their product, producing huge echo and rippels of the product name in the publically available media, whereas in the parallel things like cropmilk have greatest amount in media to which the search engines have restricted access, if those have any access to it at all (eg: from copyrights to generally most of the printed media, which is older than three decades). 146.255.181.189 23:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)