User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories

Morphology presentation template
I have prepared a first draft of a morpheme-presentation and -autocategorization template,. It is probably botched in its treatment of he|yi and lacks the categorization of the second morpheme, but its use is illustrated at referentiality. Like confix, from which this is derived, it is limited to three arguments. A variant (or a called subtemplate?), capable of handling more morphemes, at least six for normal English, more for Joycean terms, would be desirable.

It is intended to facilitate the separation of morphology (aka "synchronic etymology") and etymology (aka "diachronic etymology") and complements DoremitzWR's ideas at WT:BP.

Please tell me what you think and fix what needs fixing. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've been away a little. It looks like this template has been worked on quite a bit since you've posted this request, which is therefore no longer relevant. Right? Thanks for seeking my input, though.
 * Hope you're relaxed.
 * I'm working up the courage and energy to present a proposal about the presentation of etymology, especially historical and morphological etymology using auocategorizing templates like,, , , and which requires some resolution of the confounding of historical and morphological derivation that now characterizes our Etymology section. Part of the problem is that different languages are at different levels of readiness for presenting etymology information of the two kinds. A bigger problem is that autocategorizing requires the creation of a lot of categories, even for a deployment limited to derivations within English. And the category-naming convention should be consistent with all-language deployment. DCDuring TALK  22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen recent talk about categorizing by etymon, and don't quite see the point for the rarer etyma. As I mentioned elsewhere (though I'm darned if I know where now), how many descendants in English are there of Middle English withdrawen (verb)? Presumable just withdraw. Do we need or want an "English descendants of Middle English withdrawen" category? I say absolutely not. (OTOH, do we need or want an "English descendants of Latin canere/cano" category? That, yes, or at least maybe.) I am very much in favor of clearly marking morphological (or whatever it's called) etymology, where we have it, as such. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)