Talk:post hoc

Primary usage
Pardon my ignorance (I'm mostly from wikipedia), but shouldn't we place the latin literal translation of post hoc ("after this") as the primary definition? I think the immediate assumption that a reader is using it as part of post hoc ergo propter hoc is tenuous at best. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * English comes first on en.wikt as German does on de.wikt, etc. There should be an Etymology section, which in this case would just take you to the Latin section on the same page. For multi-word terms sometimes clicking on the component terms is more informative.
 * This is not an easy place to edit casually, but it's fun once you get the hang of it. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, the supposition that post hoc means "of or pertaining to post hoc ergo propter hoc" is fundamentally incorrect. Usage without the predicate simply means "after the fact."  Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't even a "related term", it's simply a phrase that incorporates these words in its native form.  /Blaxthos 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for motivating me to look into the entry more thoroughly. Please feel free to use, , , or to submit all or any part of the entry to WT:RFV or WT:RFD. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)