Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix

Minor ELE fix

 * Voting on: Replacing "interwiki links are normally entered by User:Interwicket in an automated fashion. " with "interwiki links are normally entered by bots in an automated fashion." in WT:ELE.
 * Vote starts: 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (7 days later)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:BP
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:RFDO

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dan Polansky (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Daniel 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support &mdash; at first I thought, in the words of Davilla elsewhere, that this was tedious, but then I decided to vote as long as we were having a vote, and also so that I could make  &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry what? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ruakh maintains (and the community has agreed) that we should not have an entry for בְּמִטָּה because it's just בְּ־ plus מִטָּה: a clitic plus a word. The way we know בְּ־ is a clitic (so בְּמִטָּה is not inclusible) and not a prefix (so בְּמִטָּה is inclusible), says Ruakh, is that the meaning of בְּ־ attaches to the meaning of the phrase it attaches to and not to the meaning of the individual word it attaches to, when that word is part of a phrase. Now, Ruakh said "The change itself is unobjectionable, but this means of making it is" — that is, is objectionable. Had he said "The change itself is unobjectionable by me, but this means of making it is" (or similar), is: would be going back on undefined:, i.e., he'd be treating the latter as a phrase, contrasting undefined: with undefined:, which would make (according to above argument) undefined: a clitic, and thus unobjectionable: uninclusible. (He didn't actually say "The change itself is unobjectionable by me, but this means of making it is", so I was exaggerating in an attempt at humor. But he came close, I think.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So in "'I liked it!' 'You did?", do we conclude that "liked it" is three words, "like it" + "-ed", and "You did [like it]?" is ellipsis for two of them? —Ruakh TALK 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain, modification has actually been done, and nobody's objected, so, meh. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Decision
8-0-2 - Passes. --Daniel 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)