User:KYPark/mulberry

mulberry
The etymology of Old English morberige: disagrees with that of its alleged descendant  mulberry:.
 * 1) The former is said to be derived from OE mor: (cf. Widsith) from Proto-Germanic *mōraz relating to "water," while the latter via an assumed *mor (cf. Chuck Entz) from Latin morus: relating to "mulberry." Thus the references are needed.
 * 2) The unusual phonetic shift from /r/ to /l/ should be explained in addition.
 * 3) The oxymoronic senses "moor" and "mountain" of mor: should also be explained or referenced.

See also User:KYPark/mor (removed from WT:ES/mor to here by CodeCat) I started questioning from 10 April 2012, still remaining puzzled.

--KYPark (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * /r/ to /l/ is not that unusual. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ More unusual than the usual /r/ to /r/ and /l/ to /l/. The point is to explain why such a shift was needed. It sounds unwise to "catch the tail of speech" (my literal translation of my native tongue 말꼬리 잡기). --KYPark (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ungoliant is right, changing from r to l isn't that unusual. In Germanic, you have the pair and, although that might be a case of allomorphy (two distinct varieties of the same frequentative suffix). The reverse isn't uncommon either, like  into  through French.  16:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ You are as off-centered as Ungoliant, however right, just wandering away from the focus or body to catch the tail, explaining away the question in focus.


 * Yeah, German wandern: and wandeln: may be well explained in terms of allomorphic frequentatives. So, in likewise scientific terms, you have to explain why mulberry along with Maulbeere differs unusual from its most, other, usual kins such as morbær and moerbei, whether from mor and muor (goh) or from morum or morus. You should make no fool of yourself above all.
 * --KYPark (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WTF? You suggested something should be added to the entry, and I presented an argument for why it shouldn’t. This is how discussions work: you suggest that something should be done, the n those who agree with you will support and those who don’t will present arguments for why it shouldn’t be done. If you didn’t want to discuss it, you should n’t have suggested that the “unusual phonetic shift from /r/ to /l/ should be explained in addition.”
 * Try defending your position with arguments instead of drama. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC) ( 14:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC) )


 * ✅ What is WTF? No, I never even remotely "suggested something should be added to the entry." But I required the anomaly between those three entries in the box be resolved above all. Then, anyone was wanted to say why the shift /r/ to /l/ happened, rather than how unusual it was. So sorry but your speech is too hard for me. Perhaps you forgot to insert "not" into "you should have suggested." To speak of my drama after Chuck may be to speak ill of me for no good reason, sounding uncivil and evil. Do you like such impression indeed? For what? --KYPark (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very well then. If this discussion isn't intended to bring about any changes to Wiktionary, it doesn't belong here. Moved. Again. I wish you'd get the point... 14:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WTF is what the fuck, an interjection of frustration. I’m frustrated because you started a discussion with three points, and when I discussed one of these points you started complaining! Then you defend yourself by saying you weren’t suggesting adding the information to the entry at all, frustrating me even more because you’ve already been told that WT:ES is for discussions that affect Wiktionary entries. — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I added another box to help see through the truth. All good luck even to the "idiots" said atop. --KYPark (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This was thoroughly discussed and explained a year ago, and I don't care to go through it all again. The problem is that you're really only interested in the drama, not the truth. You like to think of everything in terms of heroes (as long as you're included in that category) and villains (anyone who doesn't agree with and/or support your views), and you nitpick and rationalize away any facts or arguments that don't fit that. You've never shown any sign of actually listening to anything we say- except for the purpose of finding something to dispute- and I don't think there's any way you'll ever be satisfied. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I talk not only to you but also to the global readers and editors. I have the right to bring back an on-going non-trivial anomaly again and again so as to be resolved for maximal project integrity. People may wonder if you care about that at all, if you shy away anyway.


 * "The problem is that you're really only interested in the drama [where you and others nitpick to find every fault with me], not the truth," as per your terms. Such was Ungoliant's off-centered nitpicking or catching the tail "/r/ to /l/ is not that unusual."


 * You were faithful at first, with mor: at least, and then getting more and more emotional. And, like most others, you used to hit and run off-centeredly, escaping from answering one after another point faithfully. Please stop blaming me off-centeredly, wasting our time, hence doing harm to all of us, but focus on the said anomaly! Shall we?


 * Thoroughness is your point of view. Uselessness is CodeCat's who removed it from WT:ES to a subpage of mine. Neither extreme can explain the said on-going anomaly. We have to resolve it and to know what was wrong with that easy-going at the cost of project integrity.


 * The anomaly in focus is between OE mor: Widsith edited and *mor you assumed, if not invented. You should defend your *mor with the supporting reference as evidence and with the relationship to OE mor:. Or you should be blamed for "lack of scientific rigour" (as CodeCat blames me) and inventing it arbitrarily, disagreeing with OE mor:.


 * BTW, when we talked about mor: a year ago, you never mentioned *mor you vitally assumed in advance while I didn't know. So now I wonder why not back then! Is it possible to change the edit date arbitrarily?
 * --KYPark (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What if I had indeed suggested something should be added to the entry?
✅ Simply, then, this User:KYPark/mulberry should be rolled back to its origin at WT:ES! What do you think, Ungoliant and CodeCat, jointly suffering self-contradiction? You have to make one and only one choice jointly, suggested or not suggested indeed, to be logical or reasonable, otherwise to be evil opportunist! Ungoliant my friend, dare to revert CodeCat's deletion so as to show up your judgment was absolutely right. Then I would believe in your sincerity. Otherwise, all your rhetoric said to me is just for the rhetoric sake. Is that clear and fair enough? --KYPark (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What if I had never suggested something should be added to the entry?
✅ Simply, Ungoliant was wrong indeed! --KYPark (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

✅ CodeCat mistook or misinterpreted my inaction or no suggestion of mine as (if) my objection to "any changes to Wiktionary." --KYPark (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

✅ CodeCat and Ungoliant should never behave double-barrelled, I warn you seriously. --KYPark (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But, you see, you had been told that WT:ES is for suggesting changes to entries. Forgive me for thinking you had learned the lesson. It was an honest mistake of mine, but from now on I promise I won’t assume you take warnings seriously and will give you our post-warning treatment straight away. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ We are neither robots nor idiots nor children, are we? WT in itself is to evolve. It keeps changing the entries. Not only WT:ES but all our efforts are to help WT do so, no doubt, needless to say or suggest!


 * When you tell me that "WT:ES is for suggesting changes to entries" or the like, apparently unnecessarily, you would really necessarily warn me, perhaps implicitly,
 * that I should not post unnecessary agendas to WT:ES just for the discussion's sake, (Warning #1), and possibly,
 * that even necessary agendas can be deleted depending on the usefulness of discussion, my intention, etc. (Warning #2). (This may be so tricky that some ill will may discuss to trivialized or spoil my agendas at will!)


 * Then, regardless of my subjective intention and suggestion, please evaluate the objective validity, necessity or usefulness of this agenda that brings quite an etymological anomaly and disagreement to your attention and resolution for vital "project integrity."


 * And, please convince me if it is fair enough that this likely useful agenda should be deleted, simply because I never suggested (as if I opposed) changes to entries.


 * It should be noted that as a mere mover/initiator/proposer/suggester of agendas, based on recognized etymological anomaly, I need not explicitly require, suggest or dictate that they should necessarily change the related entries. "Changes to entries" should be decided by editors after the evaluation of an agenda and its discussion.
 * --KYPark (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What I suggest here is:
 * not that we would better make some change to the entry mulberry: regarding /r/ to /l/, as off-centered,
 * but that we would better know first of all why OE morberige: changed to mulberry: instead of morberry: or murberry:, though the reason may or may not be worthy of being reflected on the very entry after all.


 * Please let me know where to learn what WT:ES is all about, more than the quotes in the box at right, and what is the explicit written policy on which you are based when you told me that "WT:ES is for suggesting changes to entries." I know that not because you told me, but because it is self-evident.
 * --KYPark (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I'd like to remind you that the printing press came to prevent clergymen from arbitrary interpretations of the Bible. What about the WT:ES policy, if any written?
 * --KYPark (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Global readership at CodeCat's disposal?
--KYPark (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)