Thread:User talk:Bequw/English Etymology sections without templates/reply (2)

Well, I guess I came to the right person.

I will work on the short list you gave me.

Is it possible to conveniently get counts by PoS and by open+hyphenated vs closed spellings for one or both? That helps me scope out the nature of our gaps.

A representative sample (a suitable alphabetical sequence would do [not A's, not a block with a common prefix]) would provide more insight and be better for decision-making than a large dump.

Let me wait on the large dumps until I am in a position to do more with it than play with it.

My current enthusiasm is for "synchronic" morphological content for etymology sections that helps provide comprehensive content for Derived and Related terms. I am trying to see where I can add the most value while I am experimenting with presentation. In addition I am trying to see what can be done that finesses the lack of distinction at present between "derivation" morphologically and historically. The overlap is large. Our existing same-language derivation scheme is very sloppy. I suppose that morphological information is easier to get, provide, and use. I hope that it is helpful enough to be worth the time to add and the space it takes up on landing screens.