| | ::: Re: "fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally ''different'' from what it is today": in such a case, I think that the original/correct literal meaning is all that should go in the etymology. If the term could be interpreted literally today (that is — none of the terms are obsolete, but some of the specific relevant senses are), then that might be fodder for a parenthetical aside or for a usage note, depending on whether such an misinterpretation is actually relevant in some way to usage. (See [[don't ask, don't tell]] for one instance where such a misunderstanding affected usage in a way that demanded a usage note.) —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC) | | ::: Re: "fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally ''different'' from what it is today": in such a case, I think that the original/correct literal meaning is all that should go in the etymology. If the term could be interpreted literally today (that is — none of the terms are obsolete, but some of the specific relevant senses are), then that might be fodder for a parenthetical aside or for a usage note, depending on whether such an misinterpretation is actually relevant in some way to usage. (See [[don't ask, don't tell]] for one instance where such a misunderstanding affected usage in a way that demanded a usage note.) —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | ::::I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC) |
沒有留言:
張貼留言