Talk:nexus
Important or most important connection edit
The distinction between these similar but importantly (pun intended) different definitions is indicated by which article is used. E.g. "Times Square is the nexus of the New York subway system," vs. "Times Square is a nexus of the New York subway system."
Since I'm a well qualified tourist in the land of lexicography, but a tourist nevertheless, I'm clueless about how to structure this/these definition(s). Help! --Jm34harvey 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tea Room discussion edit
This discussion can be found in its original context at Special:PermanentLink/24548928#nexus.
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.
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.
For the English word nexus, we offer the possible plurals nexuses or nexus or nexûs or nexūs. I can't believe that nexûs and nexūs are English. Who would use such accents in English? Equinox ◑ 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently some philosophers do. The spelling with the circumflex (nexûs) in running English text is just barely attestable [1], and with the macron (nexūs) isn't that much more so [2], but it exists. Such usage seems to always trace back to w:Alfred North Whitehead and w:Process philosophy. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- If it's only just barely attested, it doesn't seem appropriate to mention in the headword line. We should have entries for those plural forms, but the rare plurals should be confined to usage notes. (DCDuring rightly worries that using obsolete / rare terms in translations where modern / common terms are available will mislead non-native speakers. Highlighting such rare plurals is similarly misleading.) - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Those forms were added by Doremítzwr, who always was fond of such things. You would need more than a Wiktionary entry to be able to use the term properly in the contexts where those plurals are expected, so a usage note should suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I took a shot at a usage note in the main entry. I'm not quite sure what we should do with the nexûs and nexūs entries (we don't do separate entries for spellings with macrons in Latin, so Latin sections are missing from entries that are arguably more Latin than English- which is odd). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we should have the entries on [[nexus]] itself, since diacritics are never mandatory in English. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I took a shot at a usage note in the main entry. I'm not quite sure what we should do with the nexûs and nexūs entries (we don't do separate entries for spellings with macrons in Latin, so Latin sections are missing from entries that are arguably more Latin than English- which is odd). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Those forms were added by Doremítzwr, who always was fond of such things. You would need more than a Wiktionary entry to be able to use the term properly in the contexts where those plurals are expected, so a usage note should suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- If it's only just barely attested, it doesn't seem appropriate to mention in the headword line. We should have entries for those plural forms, but the rare plurals should be confined to usage notes. (DCDuring rightly worries that using obsolete / rare terms in translations where modern / common terms are available will mislead non-native speakers. Highlighting such rare plurals is similarly misleading.) - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)