User talk:MDS-philologist

ore
'''Thanks for your contribution. I think there may be room/a need for more than one definition. As an economist/consultant I like your definition and think it reflects careful usage, but I am not sure that it encompasses sloppier but widespread (and related) usage. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)'''

Thanks so much, but I am unsure what you are saying here. Be happy to help. I study Indo-European and Semitic languages [English, Icelandic, A. Greek, Class. Latin, Olde English, Persian (not Farsi), Sanskrit, Arabic, Hebrew, Ge'ez, Spanish, French, Demotic, Coptic], and study migration patterns within the Indus Valley, Ethiopia, and Constantinople ca. 2,000 B.C.E, utilizing materials-technology, phonology, cognate lexical items, religion-angels-herbs-demonology, broom technology (yes, "that tool with which one sweeps"), and social notions of purity, cleanliness, and intercultural perceptions regarding the colour "black."

Regarding your statement, "...I am not sure that it encompasses sloppier but widespread (and related) usage...," a lexical item only "means what it means" via those agreed-upon senses by which any populace or culture in which it is linguistically-communicated. For example, although the philology of the English word, "court" stems, ultimately from that sense referencing the human organ, "the heart," no soul to my knowledge has had a "court attack," and often uses the word when referencing such notions as a "legal setting," or a "flat, sport-regulatory/officially-santioned, fabricated environment intended for basketball or tennis."

Again .. thanks!

''':Though the notion of ore is implicitly economic in all of its senses, people are very likely to refer to an inaccessible or small-scale (and thereby uneconomic) deposit of a mineral elsewhere used as an ore as "ore". "Alaska has a lot of taconite ore". "There are still a few tons of high-grade ore left there." "I have a few pieces of ore in the attic somewhere."

'''BTW: ~ is how one efficiently signs talk pages. Also you might want to put your interests and qualifications on your user page. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)'''

I appreciate the comment! Re: "I have a few pieces of ore in the attic somewhere" and "people are very likely to refer to an inaccessible or small-scale (and thereby uneconomic) deposit of a mineral elsewhere used as an ore as "'ore.'" If one were to truly parse these statements, one would see that economic is even more appropriate a term, as it stems from the Ancient Greek for "that which concerns the home or influences domestic life." I do not intend this to be taken seriously; just a pretty lame jest in retrospect.

Appreciate the brain-massaging!

Thanks for your help. Found your page and saw a kindred spirit. Please check on me and correct me as neccessary regarding Wiki, and challenge me regarding lexical senses.

Just remember that "etymology" is a term which -- itself -- should be shyed-away from when referring to a lexical item's providence. "Etym-" means "true," as you know from Ancient Greek, and none alive today were actually present when these contested terms were in usage, and there may have always been a step prior to that which was recorded in that existant literature hailing from those antiquated times. The term, "philology," truly suits our efforts. MDS-philologist TALK 20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

''':I only want you to feel welcome and be well-received. I didn't intend to challenge your qualifications to contribute. Your linguistic qualifications are way better than mine. I just read a lot. I had sensed that your credentials might be worth advertising, though not necessarily explicitly. Signing properly affects how well you are received in your first dealings here, which go badly for many. I sometimes take it upon myself to be a one-man Welcome Wagon.
 * You can get to my talk page by clicking on the talk page when at my user page or by clicking on the word "TALK" in my signature. And clicking on the "+" tab enables you to expeditiously enter a new topic on a talk page with a header. But take your time and good luck in your academic endeavors. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)'''

Etymology length
'''Because etymologies occupy valuable above-the-fold space on the screen and are often of no concern to users, we usually like 'em terse. (I'd also like Pronunciation sections to be shorter, but that's another subject.) I don't know what to do with a longish etymological discussion. I predict that this one will eventually get an "rfc" tag (request for cleanup) from someone. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)'''

Thank you again. I truly hope to divulge more time in honing the Wikied-pursuits you have mentioned, and agree with much of what you are extending. Are there guidelines or -- more importantly -- majority-sanctified references posted from which I might benefit? You used the word "we" ...

Your welcome was warmly taken.

Should I remove the qualifications I had recorded -- I wish not to be identified/associated/hunted/marked by those in "real world."

Am I signing-off correctly below?

MDS-philologist TALK

You must have missed a tilde: the total to give the signature + timestamp is 4.

As in many areas, there is no explicit standard about etymology section length. We seem to run by remembered precedent, which puts newcomers at even more of a disadvantage. Look at pigskin and talk:pigskin for the result of recent pressure on someone who contributed etymological material. The "talk" material had been in the main page ety section.

Also, there has been some recent discussion about how and where to include definition-level etymological information (date of first use, etc.) (I don't remember the section link, but probably in the Beer Parlor WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 11:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)