Template talk:doublet

Don't proceed with this too fast. What purpose does this serve? I think (per msh210 and others) we're already guilty of overcategorization here. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up; was just putting as a place-holder/starter for now, and wasn’t planning on categorizing every example in sight.
 * The idea is that these are an etymologically interesting class of cognates – e.g., fire: & pyre: – and the fundamental motivation was to include a gloss (specifically, link to glossary entry or other description) so puzzled readers could understand what “fire: (From ME, from OE, from PIE); etymological twin to pyre” means.
 * An appendix (including/expanding the list at ) would certainly be useful; a category seemed natural enough, as per the (rather smaller) Category:Twice-borrowed words.
 * A deeper point (with etymology categories) is that the overall category is a bit of a mess – it includes mostly “etyl by language of origin”, “root etyl categories for other languages”, and a few others, largely “by word formation type” (e.g., Category:Back-formations), though these are less regular.
 * So I’d be happy to discuss how we should handle these words & etyl categories (in BP); I was planning on doing so before expanding, regardless – thanks for your interest!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Appendix
I've added doublet to Appendix:Glossary. Should we switch this template to point there instead of to the English entry? --Tropylium (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like this has been done by in Special:Diff/49020868; thanks both!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)