Talk:majolica
Majolica is a word that has come to be used mainly for two distinct types of earthenware:
- tin-glazed with painted decoration (dip, dry, paint, bake) from mid-15th century onwards;
- coloured lead glazes applied direct to the biscuit (paint, bake) from mid-19th century onwards.
Since the mid-17th century introduction of the letter 'j' into the English alphabet, the Italian word 'maiolica' meaning 'Italian tin-glazed earthenware' which had been in use from 15th century onwards was commonly anglicized to 'majolica'.
In 1848/9 coloured glazes earthenware technology was transformed by Mintons/Arnoux, who named their product 'Palissy ware', but confusingly from 1850's onwards this product also became known as 'majolica'.
In 1875 an attempt was made to change the use of the word 'majolica' in English away from the sense 'tin-glazed with painted decoration' to the sense 'coloured glazes applied direct to the biscuit'. The change was adopted by very few. In the USA 'majolica' still means 'tin-glazed with painted decoration' to many people.
Following 150 years of maiolica/majolica Italian/English/American confusion, and widespread published misunderstanding as to the processes, only Wiktionary's entry includes both senses clearly and with unambiguous citations: 'majolica' meaning 'coloured glazes applied direct to the biscuit' originating at Mintons in 1848; and 'tin-glazed with painted in-glaze decoration originating in Italy, Spain and beyond'. (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Prior to 1848 British 'coloured glazes applied direct to the biscuit earthenware' was in a rudimentary stage of development known only as 'Whieldon ware', 'coloured glazes' earthenware, etc. After 1848/9 Minton's revolutionary process and glaze technology was widely copied and mass-produced becoming world-famous and known as 'majolica', 'majolique', majolika. Davidmadelena (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Following various Wiktionary editors' guidance the adjective has been abandoned, definitions whittled to a minimum, and synonyms and hyponyms included.
No. These are just the attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC). "An attributive noun is a noun that modifies another noun and functions as an adjective." Leech.
Davidmadelena (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC). Another - In the phrase "Minton Parian ware is sometimes decorated with coloured glazes", is 'coloured' an adj.? Also in "Minton Parian ware is sometimes decorated with majolica glazes", is 'majolica' an adjective? Davidmadelena (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Other content belongs in Wikipedia, for example 1. An alternative spelling, used in US until the present time, and in UK until early 1870’s, after which the spelling ‘maiolica’ was encouraged, for Maiolica n. Reached Italy mid-15th century via Spain. Typically flat molded, prone to flaking. Renaissance Italian maiolica became a celebrated art form. Maiolica developed in France as faience, in the UK and Netherlands as delft. Mintons named their very rare maiolica 'majolica', introducing it at the 1851 Exhibition. 2. Typically relief molded, brightly coloured, hard-wearing. ... introducing it at the 1851 Exhibition. Later widely copied and mass produced. Victorian Majolica refers to coloured glazes majolica (2.) and tin-glazed maiolica (1.) manufactured in UK between 1848 and 1900.
Davidmadelena (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
An example of a quotation that would benefit from added explanation: The Italian Vase is Majolica, The Ewer is a Palissy vase. Mintons made tin-glazed maiolica which they called majolica - that's the Italian Vase, top left. The tin-glaze process was 'dip, dry, paint, fire'. Mintons also made coloured glazes majolica which they called, initially, Palissy ware - that's the ewer, bottom middle. The process here is completely different, simply 'paint, fire'. Different process, different appearance. Davidmadelena (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Davidmadelena (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
RFD discussion: April–June 2019
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
"Adjective" the usage for which looks more like attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC). OED lists it as an adjective - see From <http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/233363> "...B. adj. Of, made of, or of the nature of majolica (senses A. 2, ...Majolica dishes were every day more in request..." and many more Davidmadelena (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. In the supposed examples of the term as an adjective, you can simply substitute the noun porcelain. Applying the converse lemming test: no major dictionary lists this as other than a noun. --Lambiam 19:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Adjective section removed. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Whatever you say guys, I am happy to deny OED claim to be the definitive record of the English language. Any comment on the link <http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/233363>. It starts "Majolica n. and adj." Davidmadelena (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Lambiam, porcelain is an entirely different material. We could substitute the noun earthenware. Or find a good adjectival use. Is majolica an adjective in the phrase "Majolica earthenware dishes"? Davidmadelena (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- A test for determining whether a word is an adjective, is to check whether it can be modified by an adverb such as very or typically. One can say “a very glossy vase” or “this earthenware is typically Italian”, showing that glossy and Italian are adjectives here – although in other contexts they function as nouns. I don’t think one can say *“a very majolica vase” or *“this earthenware is typically majolica”. --Lambiam 20:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let's have a look: is lumbar an adjective by that test? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- RFD deleted (already removed by Semper out of process). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Pronunciation
During the 19th cent. majolica was the predominant spelling, with hard j as in jack. Dictionaries gave alternative spellings, both hard j and soft j as in mike Davidmadelena (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
RFC discussion: December 2018–February 2021
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Sources in definitions, quotes in definitions, overly long definitions... SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 13:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The template was removed for a bit, but the entry still doesn't look that good to me. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Fair enough Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I did the cleanup most obvious to me, but it still seems wordy. The whole thing seems encyclopedic in origin. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Nice cleanup… Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, large parts taken directly from WP. We could probably boil it down to one or two definitions, but maybe this detail is what we should aspire to. DCDuring (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Can we aspire to list each of the senses of the word 'majolica'? OED and others muddle the senses/definitions citing ambiguous texts. Let me do more editing then please review again. Your input invaluable.Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Unambiguous citations are referenced in the WP articles. Multiple expert authors have 'got it wrong'. Impeccable sources, fortunately, do exist, and are cited.Davidmadelena (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Three unambiguous cites needed for each definition, but the cites should be "uses" not "mentions". Unfortunately narrow, precise definitions tend to be more like mentions than uses. "Mentions" include dictionary and glossary definitions. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- This difficulty of finding three uses of a word that are unambiguously uses of a single narrow definition is why general dictionary definitions can be unsatisfyingly fuzzy to specialists. DCDuring (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here are some unambiguous cites I hope will meet the requirements... I have source details... and full quotes... and can match the cites to the definitions.
- This difficulty of finding three uses of a word that are unambiguously uses of a single narrow definition is why general dictionary definitions can be unsatisfyingly fuzzy to specialists. DCDuring (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Three unambiguous cites needed for each definition, but the cites should be "uses" not "mentions". Unfortunately narrow, precise definitions tend to be more like mentions than uses. "Mentions" include dictionary and glossary definitions. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, large parts taken directly from WP. We could probably boil it down to one or two definitions, but maybe this detail is what we should aspire to. DCDuring (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Can we aspire to list each of the senses of the word 'majolica'? OED and others muddle the senses/definitions citing ambiguous texts. Let me do more editing then please review again. Your input invaluable.Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Unambiguous citations are referenced in the WP articles. Multiple expert authors have 'got it wrong'. Impeccable sources, fortunately, do exist, and are cited.Davidmadelena (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I did the cleanup most obvious to me, but it still seems wordy. The whole thing seems encyclopedic in origin. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Nice cleanup… Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
"The Palissy ware, formed of embossed biscuit covered with transparent glazes of various colors, is frequently called majolica…" "Majolica was produced for the first time by Messrs. Minton, in 1850, and they have been for many years the only producers of this article" "The word Majolica, or Maiolica… was applied to all stanniferous faience of Italy and Spain" "The Palissy ware, formed of... is frequently called majolica..." "It would take too long to describe the processes… because combine upon their majolica different sorts of transparent and opaque enamels… sometimes in the Italian method ; sometimes upon the opaque-fired enamel… and sometimes painting upon the… biscuit… afterwards covering the painting with a rich coat of transparent glaze. Such is the large ewer… " "The development of Victorian majolica occurred in two stages. First Arnoux produced a white opaque glaze which could be laid on to a basic earthenware body and then painted freehand in the maiolica style, using traditional faience techniques,... and then he developed a fine buff earthenware designed to be decorated with a range of transparent glazes coloured with metal oxides that could be painted directly on to the biscuit body…" "The collection of Palissy and Majolica ware, however, is that which appears to have created the greatest sensation among Parisian connoisseurs. The reader will remember that the main difference in these wares is that whereas the Palissy ware is coloured by a transparent glaze Majolica ware contains the colour (opaque) in the material ... One sample of Palissy ware—being a little tea-service spread upon a leaf, the legs of the teapot being snails..." Davidmadelena (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and reverted it back to an older version because despite other editors' help, the entry formatting just keeps getting worse with every passing edit. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, this is what it looked like before my latest revert. This isn't, has never been and will never be good formatting. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Closed, since the entry is much better these days. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)