Talk:uncle

"From: WT:RFC"
These senses are not distinguished in English, therefore we should not have separate definition lines for them. --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The distinctions are meaningful to an English speaker, even if the word itself makes no distinction between them.  Also, this allows for the orderly translation among languages that do make the distinction.  Cerealkiller13 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The notion that definitions should be split for translations' sake is absurd. The translations can still be distinguished.  But those are not separate meanings in English.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a sense of distinct meanings in English, as an English speaker might say, "my maternal uncle," or rather more commonly, "my uncle on my mom's side." Admittedly, people generally just say uncle.  Out of curiosity, why would splitting the definition for translation's sake be absurd? It would allow an English speaker to see that their word is more ambiguous than similar terms in other languages.  Cerealkiller13 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that maternal uncle would mean something more specific, uncle does not. It simply does not have that meaning, on its own.


 * Those more astute might notice that my recent "merge" nominations have all been of a theme; English does not use these words in these ways. If someone is looking up the definition of uncle, it is invalid to say that in one sense, it means only a paternal uncle, while in another sense it means only maternal uncle.  That is not true.  The word uncle has no such implied distinction.  So instead of having one correct definition, we are left with four incorrect definitions?  --Connel MacKenzie 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should add maternal uncle and paternal uncle here as well, as their definitions are also incorrect. --Connel MacKenzie 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I took a shot at uncle, attempting to satisfy both of our thoughts on the matter. It's a bit unconventional, but I think it could work.  Please take a look at it and see what you think.  I'll consider the matter up for debate for a couple of days, and will take the tag down after that if no one has any issues with it.  Cerealkiller13 08:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Magnificent. Yes, leave the tag for a week so navigation back and forth is easier.  Should that dislaimer be in a template?  (I imagine several familial relations may have this same problem.)  That seems to be the crux of the problem for many transitive/intransitive distinctions as well.  Not all, of course, but many where the meaning of the word is not applied differently with or without an object.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a template would be highly appropriate for this. But it would have to be worded in a  manner that would fit all sorts of situations.  Then again, are there other situations where we would switch up the definitions and translations section?  Cerealkiller13 08:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some words are only "direct" translations, regardless of sense. Wiktionary currently does not have any reasonable way of addressing these, outside of complete duplication of the translation sections.  That problem is outside the scope of uncle, but is inherently intermingled - or at least, this proposed solution seem to be.  This should probably move to WT:GP to work out one or two generic templates, then to WT:BP for discussion, then eventually to WT:VOTE, as it potentially affects most of our entries.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Confucius say: choose your battles. Rather than trying to extend the scope of what you've done, let me just say that I think it is perfect for familials (uncle/grandma/niece/cousin/brother) and leave it at that for now...at least until some people see it and decide for themselves if they like it or not.  If they see as much potential as I do, they'll start their own WT:VOTE on the topic.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am still not entirely happy with this. Maybe we should have a translation section with gloss ‘brother of a parent’, for languages that, like English, do not make the distinction (Dutch, French, German, ...), and have other translation sections that are more specific, but where these languages are not mentioned.  But then, those sections should be suitably tagged, such that people that look for D/F/G/... know they have to look in the box above.  Right now, it is just a repetition of the translations in every section.  Any suggestions? H. (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)