Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2010/March

wife beater, etymology: wife + beater... beater, etymology 2: By shortening from wife beater! Tooironic 21:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. —Michael Z. 2010-03-01 16:19 z

But a wife beater top isn't something which beats a wife as this circular definition would suggest. ---> Tooironic 11:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is no definition at all but an etymology which refers to two definitions. Beater (2), meaning a shirt, is short for wife beater, which comes from wife and beater (1), meaning one who beats. There's no problem. —Michael Z. 2010-03-04 20:59 z

But aren't we assuming quite a lot? Anyway, beater has five senses, how is a non-native speaker supposed to know which one it refers to? The idea of a singlet-wearing redneck as an abusive husband is not shared in all cultures. ---> Tooironic 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The etymology is not incorrect, although it could certainly be improved. I think the inadequacy you point out equally affects native speakers. —Michael Z. 2010-03-04 23:28 z

By the way, we should keep the etymology at the main entry wifebeater. —Michael Z. 2010-03-04 23:33 z

hi. Could someone please elaborate on the etymology at suppedaneum? I am not sure how to do the formatting. Here is a link explaining it (you'll need to scroll down a bit). thanks, 24.56.166.100

Done. --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Tearoom

In the US, the technical legal term power of attorney is roughly synonymous with attorney-in-fact (which may also be true in the UK or elsewhere, but I don't know). In this usage, can we validly place on the Etymology section of attorney-in-fact that "fact" in its archaic sense meant "deed" or "action," thus attorney-in-fact means, "attorney for an action" or "attorney for an act"? Is this generally the correct etymology?--152.3.129.133 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd always thought so. Clicking on fact in the inflection line should take the user (eg, you!) to fact#Noun. Perusal of the entry should lead to the sense you refer to. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, but since we try to create etymology sections, perhaps we can but that brief content in the actual entry...--达伟 19:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Or it could also be cabbaling or cabbeling. It might well have the same root at cabal. It would be nice to find out, so we could decide which of these forms is the main spelling and which the alternative spellings. -- ALGRIF talk 16:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a mess. It contains lots of useless information, and lots of information of general nature which should not appear on this page. -- Prince Kassad 13:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Useless to you, maybe. The information there is a perfectly valid and full treatment of etymology and belongs in Wiktionary. --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you find useless, and of general nature, in there? --Ivan Štambuk 06:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think the etymology lists too many cognates. They should be on a PIE page, along with that last note listing other PIE words for water, but certainly not cramped in this etymology section. I also think that the last part is too much w:Indo-Uralic hypothesis, which we probably don't want to support. -- Prince Kassad 10:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences should be relocated to the respective PIE page but otherwise the entry is exemplary. Indo-Uralic theory is not as fringy as you think, and many evidence arose in the last few decades supportive of it. But it should probably be mentioned only in the appendix namespace. Let it be until somebody creates an appendix on the PIE word for "water". --Ivan Štambuk 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I noticed someone added Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/wódr̥ only recently. -- Prince Kassad 20:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)