Wiktionary:Votes/2007-06/Order of Etymology and Pronunciation

• Voting on: the top-level structure of a dictionary entry. In what order should Etymology and Pronunciation be listed? Note that there are special cases with several etymologies and pronunciations that must be considered. Unless otherwise stated, it is assumed that both headings come before the definitions to which they apply.

• Vote ends: 30 July 2007
• Vote started: DAVilla 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Vote created: DAVilla 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour#ELE level 4 header sequence, User talk:EncycloPetey#vote on headers

This vote is structured as an approval vote. Please vote in approval of one or more of the options below. Comments are welcome, but do not cast any negative votes. If you do not approve of any option, or if you object to the vote, you may choose to cast a blank vote by abstaining. At the end of the vote, the option with the most support wins, provided there is concensus.

In the general case, Etymology should be first followed by Pronuncation, but Pronunciation can be first in certain complex cases if it simplifies the presentation.

1. Support —Stephen 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support EncycloPetey 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC) (but this would not be my preference)

   Such comments could not be taken into consideration when counting votes unless, perhaps, there were a tie. It would be more strategic to withdraw your vote if it appears that this option is dominating your true preference. There is nothing that says you can't change your vote, now or later, or that you can't vote strategically. In fact it is wiser to assume that everyone is voting strategically. DAVilla 20:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   I see this as a viable option, and I'm willing to support it. I'd rather show that willingness than play mind games. --EncycloPetey 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Support — Beobach972 02:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (In case of a tie between Option 1 and Option 2, my preference is for Option 2. — Beobach972 02:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
4. Support Widsith 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Williamsayers79 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Visviva 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support for flexibility. bd2412 T 19:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Dijan 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   No support: DAVilla 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC) I would support this option, but I'm not advocating it. Changed my vote. DAVilla 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

   To me, pronunciation is as much a part of a word as the spelling, maybe even moreso since spellings seem to be so arbitrary, especially in English. Languages evolve based on the way people communicate, and even in our modern day and age that communication is primarily verbal. (I would love to see, for instance, narrow IPA transcriptions used as the titles of a separate set of entries, listing ===Alternative pronunciations=== and top-level see-alsos that have very similar sounds like /ä/ and /ɑ/ or /ʌ/ and /ɔ/. That wouldn't be useful until the search box had a little microphone button backed by aritificial intelligence capability that doesn't even exist yet. Nonetheless...) The point is that the etymology describes the origin of the definitions, while the spelling and the pronunciation are qualities that identify or characterize what the word is in the first place. DAVilla 10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology should always be first, followed by Pronunciation, even in complex cases that could otherwise be simplified.

1. Support —Stephen 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support — Beobach972 02:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (— Beobach972 02:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
3. Support. I don't think we should be having multiple etymology and pronunciation sections with complex nesting; casual readers won't notice the division, and will likely see only the first section of the right part of speech. (Many might even only see the first part-of-speech section, anyway, but there's not much we can do for them without a radical revision of how we do things.) Further, even in cases where senses theoretically organize by etymology or pronunciation, different identically-spelled words tend to impinge on each other, and later-formed senses are nearly always influenced by earlier ones. The only time the current structure requires -slash- benefits from multiple sections for the same part of speech is when there are different inflections, in which case the clearest way to delineate this is with POS headers like "Verb 1", etc. —Ruakh_TALK 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   When there are multiple etymologies but a single pronunciation, this option would mean duplicating the same exact information in multiple identical Pronunciation sections. This becomes a royal headache for editors and users, since likely only one section would be edited by those dropping by, thus cauging the once identical pronunciaitons to drift apart. As you say, people only notice one section, so placing multiple copies to be edited independently would be a bad idea. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I think you must have misread the first sentence of my comment? I'm saying there should be only one pronunciation section, and it should be preceded by the sole etymology section; no duplication necessary. —Ruakh_TALK 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Then how would you know which pronunciation/etymology applied to each meaning? I think people have a conception of what this entails that differs from your vision, and an example would be very illustrative. Do you feel that the options in this vote are adequate to cover your case? DAVilla 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   This is a problem we already have; for example, read has to give both the pronunciation of the plain form, and that of the preterite-​and-​past-​participle form. It's also a problem we already have a few different solutions for, both in translations sections and in synonyms sections. I don't see a need for perfect uniformity; depending on the details of the various etymologies and the various pronunciations, different ways of structuring them might be reasonable. Incidentally, while my main argument for this approach is that it makes it easier for readers to find definitions, I must point out that this approach allows us to give etymologies much more clearly, because it allows us to explain how the homonyms have influenced each other, and allows us to show sense development better. (See fly for an example of an entry where even if the split-by-etymology were correct — and it's not — it would still destroy the flow of the entry, by grouping senses based on etymology rather than by resulting sense. As a result, the two baseball senses are split between etymology 1 and etymology 3, with etymology 3 referring back to the baseball sense in etymology 1.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   No, I didn't misread. Look at second, which has a single etymology but two pronunciations. One of the pronunciations is very specific; it applies only to a verb sense, and not to all verb senses. If we had a single pronunciation section, indicating which sense had that pronunciation would be needlessly tedious and repetitive. I've come across situations like this many times. I also think you misread the proposal option 2. It doesn't say that an entry will have only a single etymology section; it says that etymology always precedes pronunciation. If you would like each entry to have a single etymology section, then that is a different vote. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Re: "If we had a single pronunciation section, indicating which sense had that pronunciation would be needlessly tedious and repetitive.": Not at all. The pronunciation section would say simply, "In the sense 'Transfer temporarily to alternative employment': … In all other senses: …." (The definition for that sense would also have a note to see the pronunciation section.) Also, are you sure that all regional pronunciations divide the senses exactly that way 100% of the time? If not, that division doesn't really work. (And yes, I realize that this option wouldn't prohibit having multiple etymology or pronunciation sections, but since I think that complicated etymology- or pronunciation-based nesting is always a bad idea, I'm not going to vote for any option that encourages rearranging sections to accommodate it.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Support Atelaes 22:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC) If biology has taught us anything, it is that descent is the only reasonable way to catalogue organisms (as well as do just about anything else in biology.....). I believe the same holds true with language. While allowing sorting by pronunciation might make certain entries simpler, I think it will ultimately confuse the issue of sorting as a whole on Wiktionary. Atelaes 22:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support "Everything under the language header excepting categories etc. should be sorted out with etymology" would be a simple, fundamental, valuable discipline that provides readers and editors with an unobstructed view of our page structure. And the resulting etymology section always corresponds to an entry of other paper or paper-originated dictionaries. I suppose it is a good idea to keep sticking to it. Getting off the main topic a little though, in "complex cases" I've encountered editing pronunciation, the heading sometimes seemed to have to be L4 heading or something under POS headings rather than to precede etymology. --Tohru 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In the general case, Pronunciation should be first followed by Etymology, but Etymology can be first in certain complex cases if it simplifies the presentation.

1. Support DAVilla 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC) It's not clear that there are any cases in which putting Etymology first would simplify presentation, since different pronunciations almost inherently have different etymologies. If that's true then I will combine this option with the one below it and notify anyone who voted for one but not the other. DAVilla 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   In many languages (such as Russian and Arabic), different pronunciations usually do not mean different etymologies. As for English, what comes to mind are the noun/verb pairs such as grease (with ending in "i:s" or "i:z"), having different pronunciations for the same etymology. —Stephen 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with your general point, but beg to differ slightly: If different senses have different pronunciations, then they do have different etymologies. Seeing as we don't give fully detailed etymologies, this doesn't necessarily mean we want to include a separate etymology section for each one (and doesn't necessarily mean that the etymology sections would say different things), but one plausible way to implement option 3b would be to require that the etymology sections account for such pronunciation differences. —Ruakh_TALK 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Support EncycloPetey 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC) (but this is my second preference)
3. Support Connel MacKenzie 08:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Status quo.

   Really? DAVilla 11:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

   Thinking of specific complex examples, yes, this was the original layout description. --Connel MacKenzie 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

   Then that wouldn't be "status quo", it would be "original intent" or something. Anyways, I'm not trying to get you to change your vote, as I'm not completely satisfied with option 1 myself. DAVilla 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation should always be first, followed by Etymology, even in complex cases that could otherwise be simplified.

1. Support EncycloPetey 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. See my comment above, at option 2. By the way, I have no preference between this and option 2. —Ruakh_TALK 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support (again). I'm not trying to play mind games, I'm just having difficulty deciding on this one. DAVilla 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation should always be first, and Etymology should be listed below the definitions to which it applies.

1. Support DAVilla 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Visviva 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Etymology and Pronunciation should be listed below the definitions to which they apply.

1. Oppose. Just saying. bd2412 T 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Abstain H. (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I’d like to point out this vote is too English-centric. E.g. in Dutch, the word beken has two different pronunciations, which have wildly different interpretations and etymologies, bound to the POS: is the plural of beek, ‘brook’, and is the first person singular and imperative of bekennen, ‘to confess’. So the logical step would be to make both pronunciation and etymology an L4 subheader under POS. And I am sure Dutch is not the only language in which such cases occur.

   I've never seen the backwards e used before. Hmm. --EncycloPetey 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

   I meant to use a schwa, which is ə, I am sorry for the confusion. H. (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

   I tried to be inclusive when setting this vote up. I believe your choice falls under Option 5, no? DAVilla 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

   Well, no, since I do not think this is always necessary. We should be flexible here and allow pronunciations and etymologies to occur on L4, but I do not want to enforce it for e.g. English, where this is not meaningful. H. (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Robert Ullmann 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (and no, "abstain" is no good) Oppose all, and the structure of the vote. It isn't at all well defined: "certain complex cases" is meaningless without explication. What is needed here is to write one coherent proposal, that is well-defined, and subject it to a vote. Robert Ullmann 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

   Did you read the linked discussion? --EncycloPetey 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Option 1 was the closest to passing, with 8 votes in favor and 6 persons not voting in favor. This was essentially a vote of confidence, since option 1 reflects the current wording of WT:ELE. Although constituting a simple majority, this does not constitute a supermajority of 2/3, so there is no real resolution. DAVilla 09:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)