Talk:tą̀tə̀ʼə́wyu
Add topicLatest comment: 14 years ago by Beobach972 in topic tą̀tə̀’ə́wyu
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I can't work out what's going on here at all. Definition is comprehensible, the reference is too. Perhaps we should just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It appears to be the name of a character in a Taos folk tale that was translated independently by a Trager and a Parsons, who each translated the name in different ways. [1] —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It’s good the way it is. These people are very secretive and information is almost impossible to come by. When you say that the definition is "comprehensible", I suppose you mean "incomprehensible". To me, it is very clear and comprehensible. They are the possible translations of a Taos Indian name. Does not need any clean up unless you want to make the reference clearer. Trager is w:George L. Trager. Parsons is w:Elsie Clews Parsons. People who are interested in this language know about Trager and Parsons. —Stephen (Talk) 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, you mean, "it's comprehensible as long as you already know what it means?" So for people like me, tough sh*t? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It’s good the way it is. These people are very secretive and information is almost impossible to come by. When you say that the definition is "comprehensible", I suppose you mean "incomprehensible". To me, it is very clear and comprehensible. They are the possible translations of a Taos Indian name. Does not need any clean up unless you want to make the reference clearer. Trager is w:George L. Trager. Parsons is w:Elsie Clews Parsons. People who are interested in this language know about Trager and Parsons. —Stephen (Talk) 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn’t know what it meant until I read it. When I read it, I understood it. That’s what I meant by comprehensible. —Stephen (Talk) 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't understand it from the content alone. I think we're institutionally oblique as it is; let's not openly say that obliqueness is good. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn’t know what it meant until I read it. When I read it, I understood it. That’s what I meant by comprehensible. —Stephen (Talk) 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t see anything oblique about it. It looks clear and is what I would expect. It might be a good idea to add links to the ref, but otherwise it seems fine to me. —Stephen (Talk) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think of my edits? Also, I propose we link to (an oldid of) this conversation on the talk page when we're through, in case it helps anyone looking this entry up in the future. — Beobach 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)