Talk:tread

Ancient Germanic cognates removed without the slightest vestige of explication

in res medias: User:Widsith considers the presence of Ancient Germanic cognates in the section Etymology acceptable, whereas User:Atelaes some hours later initiates their deletion. I pray both administrators to come to terms about this matter and am impatiently looking forward to their conclusion. If some more valiant user than me, who does not reckon elucidation of the words in languages cognate to and preceding OE by centuries (Gothic) disruptive, wishes to make himself familiar with the Old Norse and Gothic words, they are to be found here. Bogorm 19:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious diachronic mismatch should be generally avoided. OHG and Gothic cognates are more appropriate for ===Etymology=== section of OE entry; for modern English entry cognates of other modern (non-exinct) languages are more applicable. --Ivan Štambuk 19:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but: 1) the article for the OE term does not exist. 2) Widsith's reply is unambiguous and permitting what you are calling "worth to be avoided". Bogorm 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1) is irrelevant and doesn't invalidate what I said 2) Widsith also said on your talkpage: There is no problem with you entering ON or Gothic cognates to English words. The only reason many of us don't do this is to avoid complicating entries unnecessarily; we normally use modern cognates with English (ie Swedish, Dutch, German etc) and ON/Gothic with the corresponding ancient languages like OE, OHG etc. But that's just a convention and if you want to add ON/Gothic to English etymologies then feel free. Indeed this convention Widsith speaks about is no written policy/guideline, but don't you think that it makes more sense to group Gothic and ON with Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Old Persian, Hittite, OCS and similar? Etymologies for these regularly link among each other, and mentioning of modern languages only English cognate in perentheses which descended from Englisc etymon (because this is English Wiktionary after all). --Ivan Štambuk 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(The OE article is there now - tredan - and hopefully has adequate information on cognates. Ƿidsiþ 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I am content now. You have mentioned the modern descendants for two modern languages, so I am going to write the Danish one (træde) from Old Norse, if you do not mind. Bogorm 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tea room discussion

Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.

Is treaded considered substandard in the UK? It is just lower frequency (except in tread water) in the US. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging from “tread”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC. this word must have been not only substandard, but nonexistent in the USA as well. Since I am sceptical towards all things which are more recent than 100 years, I support firmly the usage note as a kind of discouragement for the reader against the use of the non-standard neologistic forms. Bogorm 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I am sceptical towards all things which are more recent than 100 years": Does that mean you now support the Arabic script for Tajik? :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Transitive : do dance steps (dated)

transitive : to perform the steps of a dance (dated) --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)