User talk:Harry Audus

Specifying verbs as ergative rather than transitive | intransitive
Is using the transitive|intransitive specification for ergative verbs is better than using the ergative specification? My understanding of Wiktionary cross-referencing (and I confess I'm a relative novice) is that an ergative verb is automatically included in the List of Ergative Verbs only if the ergative specification is used in the definition. So, my preference is to use "ergative" rather than "transitive|intransitive".

Further, I think that using the ergative spec adds to an understanding of the word's usage. English is rich in ergative verbs, and I believe Wiktionary's users benefit from having them identified, far more than simply being informed that the verb has both transitive and intransitive usage.

Using the term "ergative" means that the same (in fact, more) information can be conveyed with fewer words - it is more concise.

Harry Audus (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Harry Audus


 * Not all transitive-and-intransitive verbs are ergative though. Equinox ◑ 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. All the more reason for using the "ergative" specification, and "transitive & intransitive" (What's the correct form?) (or differentiating by definition) where the verb isn't ergative. Sorry, I should have clarified this above. Harry Audus (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Harry Audus


 * Hello Harry Audus -- I find your recent edits to tip: and scorch: objectionable because you are trying in a single definition to express the transitive and the intransitive senses, and the result is convoluted (or overcooked:?) and unlikely to be clear to a casual user of this dictionary, or even to many seasoned editors. What does it mean to begin a definition with "(To cause)" complete with parentheses? And which quotations associated with a combined definition now illustrate transitive usages and which illustrate intransitive ones?
 * I love my old pal like a brother, but disagree with his preferences concerning this matter. I think it is much more straightforward and clearer to have separate definition lines and separate sets of quotations--one for transitive usage and one for intransitive. If you want, you can include the "ergative" label in the context along with each "transitive" or "intransitive" label. Or you can add a usage note explaining that the verb (in some specified senses) is an ergative verb and manually add "  " at the bottom of the page. Respectfully -- · (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again TP. I disagree, but I can see that you feel strongly about this. I honestly don't care what method is used, as long as ergative verbs end up in the List of Ergative Verbs. But surely this is such a basic style issue that there must already be a Wiki protocol for the correct format. I leave it to you and others who have a much greater stake in rectitude of style than I. Harry Audus (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Harry Audus