Talk:Definitions of loglanghood: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
D, I disagree with your notion of ‘dubiously defined’. It's pretty clear what those words mean, looking at their derivation. | 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. | 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 with it in the end. | ||
<sub>~[[User:Uakci|uakci]]</sub> 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC) | <sub>~[[User:Uakci|uakci]]</sub> 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
</blockquote> | </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 with it in the end.
~uakci 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)