Talk:Definitions of loglanghood: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with " loglanghood loglangologizing monoparsing I'm not sure if it is a good idea for the wiki to use and encourage words which are... newly-minted? unique? dubiously-defined? ma...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
[[User:DerSaidin|DerSaidin]] ([[User talk:DerSaidin|talk]]) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC) | [[User:DerSaidin|DerSaidin]] ([[User talk:DerSaidin|talk]]) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
<blockquote> | |||
D, I disagree with your notion of ‘dubiously defined’. It's pretty clear what those words mean, looking at their derivation. | |||
The only word I ''would'' complain about is ‘monoparsing’, but that term comes with a definition next to it, so I don't see a problem. | |||
<sub>~[[User:Uakci|uakci]]</sub> 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
</blockquote> |
Revision as of 10:33, 18 April 2020
loglanghood loglangologizing monoparsing
I'm not sure if it is a good idea for the wiki to use and encourage words which are... newly-minted? unique? dubiously-defined? made-up?
This is ultimately about describing constructed languages, but I'm questioning how constructive freshly constructed words are in the description.
DerSaidin (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
D, I disagree with your notion of ‘dubiously defined’. It's pretty clear what those words mean, looking at their derivation.
The only word I would complain about is ‘monoparsing’, but that term comes with a definition next to it, so I don't see a problem.
~uakci 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)