Talk:grurë

Taxonomic terms in definitions, etc

I don't think Triticum belongs in the definition line. It should be a hyponym. Hordeum spp are not hyponyms of Triticum.

"Wheat" does not correspond to grurë either. "Grain", which includes wheat and barley, as well as other cereals such as millet and oats, might correspond better. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–July 2014

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

grurë

Rfv-sense: "wheat Triticum"

Judging by the hyponyms, the actual definition might be "grain" or "cereal grain", but it also might be some grouping that does not neatly correspond to any such English word. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, referenced anyway. It doesn't say much for the quality of the reference, which seems to manifest deficient knowledge of English and taxonomy. Clearly the Albanian hyponyms shown are hyponyms of grurë, but the English definientes (?) "wheat Triticum" do not have species of barley (Hordeum spp) as hyponyms. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it isn't clear at all that the Albanian hyponyms shown are hyponyms of grurë, merely that they are derived terms from grurë. After all, seahorse isn't a hyponym of horse, nor is peanut a hyponym of nut. In fact, given the etymology of the word, it's entirely possible that it originally meant grain in general, and its derived terms still reflect that meaning, but the word by itself has come to mean specifically wheat, just as in Slavic žito/жито originally meant grain but in many languages has come to mean specifically rye, or like English corn which originally meant grain but came to mean "oats in parts of Scotland and Ireland, wheat or barley in England and Wales, and maize or sweetcorn in the Americas". I don't know anything about Albanian, so I don't know if that's actually the case, but it is a plausible explanation for why the derived terms listed don't appear to be actual semantic hyponyms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that we are paying attention to the entry, we need to persevere. I don't think changing the heading would be a good idea without some sq-4,5,N input or another, better(?) reference. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring the possibility of grurë being used as an equivalent of both wheat and cereal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In an dictionary written in English that would require two sense lines, IMO. Resolving this kind of thing could often be done if one knew with some certainty the genera or species etc that were included as referents, as the taxonomic system is relatively low in ambiguity. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The word's primar meaning is wheat, for cereals in Albanian we use drithër, while grain is kokërr. For the historical sense development I agree with Angr's argument Etimo (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This nomination seems rather questionable, you're rfv'ing based solely on the hyponyms, not the definition? Move to close. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant If the definition is correct then the hyponyms are wrong and vice versa. Something has to change.

Also there is no requirement for justification of RfVs. We aspire to have citations (with English equivalents if not in English) for all words in all languages. The fact that our non-English entries rarely have them is a testimony to the relatively early stage of development of our coverage of terms in languages other than English. Without some uniformity of requirements (including unambiguous glosses, citations, RfV, RfD) for terms in all languages our slogan ("All words in all languages") is grossly deceptive. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the best guess would be that the terms shown under the Hyponyms header should actually be shown instead under a new Derived terms header as @Angr suggests. If @Etimo agrees, we could put this to bed without prejudice as citations don't seem to be forthcoming anyway, no matter the imperative that citations be provided in response to an RfV. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The term has been cited for days. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Albanian a language that is deemed to only require a single citation? Where is the list of such languages or, better, the much shorter list of those needing three cites for verification? DCDuring TALK 14:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The list of well documented languages requiring 3 cites is at WT:WDL, and Albanian is on it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well-known work. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh great. I can't just count citations; I have to read and translate them too. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Only the heading. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me Etimo (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This online Albanian-English dictionary gives three English definiens for grurë:

cereal: drithë {m} (sh drithëra), grurë {m}

grain: grurë {m}

wheat: grurë {m}

Presenting Hyponyms properly would require a lot of care and probably waster users' time, so Derived terms it is. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Passed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)