Talk:exsanguinate
Add topicLatest comment: 8 months ago by Sgconlaw in topic Etymology
Etymology
[edit]- Discussion moved from User talk:Sgconlaw.
You're making etymology sections unreadable, please stop. PUC – 09:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @PUC: wow, that's rude. I assume you're referring to this entry, since you didn't even bother to indicate what you were referring to. First, the entry exsanguinātus doesn't exist, and I'm not familiar enough with Latin entries (conjugation, etc.) to create one myself. Secondly, there seems to be a difference of opinion (Gaffiot v. OED) regarding the derivation of the word, so I do not see how noting that in the etymology makes the etymology section "unreadable". — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that @PUC's changes are an improvement. It is true that @Sgconlaw used to make extremely long-winded etymology sections, e.g. at diff, but this entry is not an example of that. However, I am concerned that the second paragraph (starting with "from exsanguis") doesn't seem to be supported by our sources. Also, is Latin exsanguinō attested? Ioaxxere (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per DMLBS the verb exsanguinō is attested in Medieval Latin, Classical Latin employing only the adjective (participle?) exsanguinātus. Hythonia (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere: As regards the first paragraph, exsanguis lists exsanguinātus (no entry yet) as a derived term. The second paragraph is what the OED, in an entry which has not been revised since 1894, posits: "exsanguināt- participial stem of exsanguināre". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: So, to be clear, you're using Wiktionary as a source for Wiktionary? Ioaxxere (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere: for the first paragraph, yes, it was an inference from our entry exsanguis. Not ideal, but I didn't come across anything else. Exsanguinātus appears in Gaffiot and Lewis and Short, but those works do not provide any further etymology. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Here are references supporting the second paragraph: [1], [2], [3]. Unless you have a good reason to doubt these sources, exsanguinātus < exsanguināre should be presented as a fact, not as "possibly" true. WOTDs, of all entries, should be well-referenced. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere: I'm fine with making the second paragraph more definite. However, OED gives the present active infinitive of Latin verbs whereas it doesn't seem to be our practice, which is why I used exsanguinō instead. Should that remain? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Here are references supporting the second paragraph: [1], [2], [3]. Unless you have a good reason to doubt these sources, exsanguinātus < exsanguināre should be presented as a fact, not as "possibly" true. WOTDs, of all entries, should be well-referenced. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere: for the first paragraph, yes, it was an inference from our entry exsanguis. Not ideal, but I didn't come across anything else. Exsanguinātus appears in Gaffiot and Lewis and Short, but those works do not provide any further etymology. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: So, to be clear, you're using Wiktionary as a source for Wiktionary? Ioaxxere (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere: As regards the first paragraph, exsanguis lists exsanguinātus (no entry yet) as a derived term. The second paragraph is what the OED, in an entry which has not been revised since 1894, posits: "exsanguināt- participial stem of exsanguināre". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)