Talk:tą̀tə̀ʼə́wyu

tą̀tə̀’ə́wyu
I can't work out what's going on here at all. Definition is comprehensible, the reference is too. Perhaps we should just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the name of a character in a Taos folk tale that was translated independently by a Trager and a Parsons, who each translated the name in different ways. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s good the way it is. These people are very secretive and information is almost impossible to come by. When you say that the definition is "comprehensible", I suppose you mean "incomprehensible". To me, it is very clear and comprehensible. They are the possible translations of a Taos Indian name. Does not need any clean up unless you want to make the reference clearer. Trager is George L. Trager. Parsons is Elsie Clews Parsons. People who are interested in this language know about Trager and Parsons. —Stephen (Talk) 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you mean, "it's comprehensible as long as you already know what it means?" So for people like me, tough sh*t? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I didn’t know what it meant until I read it. When I read it, I understood it. That’s what I meant by comprehensible. —Stephen (Talk) 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand it from the content alone. I think we're institutionally oblique as it is; let's not openly say that obliqueness is good. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t see anything oblique about it. It looks clear and is what I would expect. It might be a good idea to add links to the ref, but otherwise it seems fine to me. —Stephen (Talk) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you think of my edits? Also, I propose we link to (an oldid of) this conversation on the talk page when we're through, in case it helps anyone looking this entry up in the future. — Beobach 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)