User talk:Msh210/Archive/words in FL phrases

zona
If this edit you added zona pellucida as a Descendant of zona. It is not. It could be a Derived term (if it exists in Latin texts), but it is not a Descendant. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting it, then. Question: Etymology makes it sound as though  is used whenever, in the opposite direction, the word would be mentioned in the other word's etymology (and is in a different language). Is that not the correct rule, or does that rule not apply here?—msh210  ℠  16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we did that, there would be no value in what was included in the Descendants. Would you want to include every "time" compound construction at the Old English entry for ?  Doing so would swamp out any useful information.  My philosophy in dealing with LAtin descendants is to only list words when this Latin word directly gave rise to that non-Latin word, with no intermaediaries.  The only exceptions I make to this are (1) Verbs that descended through a participle form, and (2) English words that descended via the French (but only because this is the English Wiktionary and because English is a mongrel language that in many ways is more French than German as a result of the Norman invasion).  Have a look at About Latin, which includes a fuller description, including some ideas that resulted from conversations with Widsith.  It's still not completely articulated, but I think it's a better explanation than what we currently have on ELE. --EncycloPetey 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you — listing the English zona pellucida s.v. Latin zona is a bad thing — if we have a Latin entry for zona pellucida. In that case, just list the Latin phrase as a derived term of zona. But we don't. So someone who wants to look up zona pellucida, doesn't think to do so as a phrase, and looks up zona will be gratified, I think, to find his phrase sitting there as a derived term. Of course, gratifying users is not sufficient reason to include something (or else we'd be UD), and I'm not sure it's a good enough reason here, but, as you know, I added it anyway. I can't say I'm saddened to see it gone, and I'll bear this conversation in mind in the future (until I forget it and mess up again ).—msh210  ℠  18:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)