Talk:ve

RFC discussion: September 2022
English. Etymology 2 (referring to as a neo-pronoun) is pretty encyclopaedic. Theknightwho (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't an etymology be encyclopaedic?
 * Ioaxxere (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because a lot of it doesn't relate to etymology, but merely use. It's written more like a Wikipedia article, and notably omits to give any quotations. The final sentence merely tells us that the word was used in certain novels after the coinage. Not relevant to the etymology, and not how we lay out entries. Theknightwho (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The first and third sentences are okay, if a bit verbose. The second sentence is probably obvious enough to go without saying. The information in the last sentence would be better handled as quotations. 98.170.164.88 19:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've condensed it a little. I think the sentences about Philologus and Varda are fine (distinct coinages, with differing objective forms). The last sentence, about Hulme and Egan using it, should be dropped in favour of just quoting them or adding rfquoteks. That'd leave two sentences, and we could also drop the entire "as an alternative to using "he or she," singular they, or one in sentences without a specified gender" clause if we want to be maximally brief. - -sche (discuss) 00:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the quotations. I'm not super impressed by the one from The Bone People, since the pronoun only seems to appear in one sentence (as a mention, at that), but I'll leave it. The Egan books use the pronoun throughout. 98.170.164.88 01:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! Theknightwho (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)