Talk:tumultuous

Etymology markup

@Erutuon, Sgconlaw: I'm bothered with the following markup: {{m|la|-ōsus||''suffix meaning ‘full of, prone to’ forming adjectives from nouns''}}; {{m}} still treats that sentence as a gloss, and puts it between brackets quote marks, which strikes me as wrong.

Wouldn't there be a way to add a parameter for non-gloss definitions? @Erutuon, notice how your module for doublets treats glosses and labels differently; I'd like to have something similar here. Per utramque cavernam 13:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you type out the formatting that you would expect to see? I can’t picture it. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Sorry, I made a mistake; I didn't mean brackets but quote marks. Thus "-ōsus (suffix meaning ‘full of, prone to’ forming adjectives from nouns)", without the brackets quote marks around the non-gloss definition. Per utramque cavernam 14:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at {{mention}}, I see there is a parameter |pos=. It's not really for the purpose referred to above, but it could be pressed into use like this: -ōsus (suffix meaning ‘full of, prone to’ forming adjectives from nouns). — SGconlaw (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: I think non-gloss definitions should be italicized, since that’s what {{non-gloss definition}} does. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam, Sgconlaw: I also have often put put non-gloss definition types of things in a |pos= parameter. I'm not sure if it is a good practice, but I am not sure how to clearly distinguish the usage of a POS parameter and a non-gloss definition parameter. I think it's intentional that part-of-speech or non-gloss definition stuff in the |pos= parameter is not italicized. If people sometimes add italics to it, that makes it difficult to maintain consistent formatting. — Eru·tuon 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

Also, regarding your removal of part of the etymology, is there some consensus on how far back into a word’s history an etymology should be traced? Otherwise, I don’t see why we that part should be removed. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found this, where most people seem to agree with you; it's quite an old discussion, though. I know the issue has been discussed here and there, but I can't find where... I really have to take this to the BP, as you've already asked me to do before. Per utramque cavernam 21:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)