Talk:Κύπρος

I think I've managed to translate the Greek, despite not knowing a word of the language. It's amazing what you can do with an online dictionary. :-) I took out what looked like a reference to the Middle East, because I'm not sure Cyprus is really part of the M.E. To the original poster, or any other speakers of Greek: does this look right? -- Ortonmc 21:21, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

@Mahagaja, Erutuon, Barytonesis, a user just added some stuff but I don't really know where to look to check any of it, and it is ill-formatted, and it looks wrong. Any thoughts? —*i̯óh₁nC^[5] 05:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, beyond my ken. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: It's a good old copy paste from Wikipedia. I tried to clean it up a bit, but it's still ugly. Apparently the word is already attested in Mycenaean in the demonym 𐀓𐀠𐀪𐀍 (ku-pi-ri-jo), but I don't have the resources to check that.

I really hate all these empty toponyms etymology sections, they're the worst breeding ground for fantasist long-winded explanations. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Parchment scroll

This is the longest etymology section I've ever seen. You sure it's not material for Wikipedia at this point? @Fay Freak Shoshin000 (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000: Well, it’s not like encyclopediae and dictionaries can’t overlap, as they talk about language, so there is a false dichotomy. But we have the usual problems of Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is. We can, and are supposed to connect primary materials, it’s our job, and if information in secondary works contradicts it or each other then nothing like w:WP:SYNTHESIS applies, we have to strike a balance unless we make the dictionary argue against itself across multiple pages or even the “sourced” information in one page. We can absolve the lexicon from being dulling dumping grounds of vague resemblances, by guiding the reader through them, with guidelines inherent to the philologic and linguistic art.

As often with balances (such as we are used to from an administrative act and courtroom), it is easy to press the panic button and dismiss the conclusion as a ”minority opinion” or “fringe”. Though the whole point of the procedure, distinguishing the professional from the greenhornish pretender, and also from the conspirationist nutbar we dread, is to find aspects which weren’t previously illuminated, while confronting other narratives that could come to mind, particularly because they have been published by an obvious authority. Legitimization by procedure. Well you see how one passes the exams for the bar, but unlike there in etymology everyone is at an advantage here due to not having stakes in the outcome; we write no biographies of living persons, but of the linguistic material that has come out of them. I mean I added all the information, and cut Gordian knots like “Copper from Cyprus or Cyprus from copper?”, that would leave us the follow-up question where the other lexical item is from then, but nobody denies loses traction if a third option provides a way out for both word stories. I am sure people are greatly and specifically interested in these rare lines of thought. I am not imposing my opinion but weighing the merits of the case in a reproducible manner.

Writing texts that are less demotivating and make you smarter than the standard average ones. Regardless of the aesthetic merit, you see even that the discomposure itself enables you to have the word origin enter your memory readier and fortify it and thus optimize your comprehension through increased quality entropy (as you asked how to optimize your brain-cells: the skill issue is to selectively modulate your attention in the flood of information your self is lured to bombard you with, that has always been taught by the greater philosophers and now requires head-shrinkers, creating mental health literacy on the recipient, low in the norm population, that we fear at every corner criticizing us due to their bulk) better than it would be with the amnemonic lists as on Caesar—any articles of such kind should be rewritten if feasible: it is known by professors that students will remember certain things if you excite them with an anecdote, or emotion.

You may rather question DJ K-Çel’s assumption that afterwards they would be desirous to engross their mental image, of what was going and what supports it, with “more”, as if this dissertation has not satisfied their curiosity but Wikipedia would finally untangle it. The situation is reserved in this case, we afford to be longer while they don’t want to; I have outlined to you what happens when one writes there (and why), there is a bias towards some affectively contrived norm that preferrably oversteps what is relevant in science, despite their noble talk about relevance. The fear of being excluded from the tribe is so strong that it trumps rationality, because the latter itself phenomenologizes itself as a drive to relate: what the brain does when it is idle enough to edit wikis, rumination; persuasion is also the art to get people to quit this, the unnecessary shocks. We have more science tools than ever to be sure about the pertinent approaches. Probably you noticed there is a lot going on here, even if not stooping yourself to Wikipedian vulturism, though the longer but explicit text was supposed be to read faster than an obscurantist condensed one. Of course if the data is open then there is also more surface to find fault, but again the being right or wrong in conclusion is not wholly the point, of every academic text. Fay Freak (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Bruh this is some Jakob Böhme level of DMT release. I nevertheless appreciate you respecting me enough to write such a text.

However, to my regret, this text is so long and going off on tangents that I, as a homo economicus, took the rational decision to parse your scripture through ChatGPT in order to yield an understanding overstepping superficiality.

I say this with all my respect, but please don't let "Amtssprache" corrode your thinking and writing style! The Wikipedian vulturism you describe reaped, auf jeden Fall, the article "Occam's Razor", which I invite you to read.

My personal opinion is that Wiktionary should remain as concise and accessible in language as possible. Graphomanic ramblings and use of obscure semantics are weapons, not appropriate in all circumstances, such as an online dictionary, which should be – I believe – meant to bring the world's languages at a new level of accessibility with the shared ties of mankind underlined as never before, through the simplest prism: Language, la lengua, yazyk, al-lugha, haLashon, what we all share. I want more people to realize that each and every word they pronounce is a vessel containing a story, used throughout history's ups and lows, and more broadly reflecting ties to other peoples they would not even have considered. In the current climate of crisis, anti-intellectualism, and fascistoid blossoms sprawling hither and thither, I enjoy thinking the importance hereof transcends the quite meager userbase. I hope you see what I am trying to draw in a (somewhat) less "amtssprachlich" way.

All the best, kisses, Shoshin000 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the etymology section is too long. I thought of editing it for concision myself; however, i was unsure what to take out.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, the etymology section is confusingly worded.

Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)