Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix

< Wiktionary:Votes

Minor ELE fix edit

Support edit

  1.   Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Dan Polansky (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Daniel 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support — at first I thought, in the words of Davilla elsewhere, that this was tedious, but then I decided to vote as long as we were having a vote, and also so that I could make
    1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-09/User:Interwicket

    a part of my vote. :P - -sche (discuss) 09:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, look, -sche is having fun with MediaWiki syntax. So these votes are not tedious at all. :) --Daniel 10:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1.   Support Equinox ◑ 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2.   Oppose because RU may suddenly rise up from his grave and return to his computer to restart Interwicket... just kidding,   Support -- Liliana • 23:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3.   Support BiblbroX дискашн 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4.   Support Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose edit

    1.   Support. I thought we are into seriuz bizness. --BiblbroX дискашн 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to count this as an "Oppose" later. --Daniel 10:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This was obviously a faux pas made by me. Anyway, I cast a new vote in the proper section and if needed (with seriuz bizness, or serious business in mind) I can strike the misplaced vote. Cheers, --BiblbroX дискашн 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. --BiblbroX дискашн 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's better. Thanks. --Daniel 11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Abstain edit

    1.   Abstain The change itself is unobjectionable, but this means of making it is. —RuakhTALK 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait, so you view unobjectionable as two words? Is this like בְּמִטָּה? Should we not have an unobjectionable entry?  :-P ​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry what? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ruakh maintains (and the community has agreed) that we should not have an entry for בְּמִטָּה because it's just בְּ־ plus מִטָּה: a clitic plus a word. The way we know בְּ־ is a clitic (so בְּמִטָּה is not inclusible) and not a prefix (so בְּמִטָּה is inclusible), says Ruakh, is that the meaning of בְּ־ attaches to the meaning of the phrase it attaches to and not to the meaning of the individual word it attaches to, when that word is part of a phrase. Now, Ruakh said "The change itself is unobjectionable, but this means of making it is" — that is, is objectionable. Had he said "The change itself is unobjectionable by me, but this means of making it is" (or similar), (deprecated template usage) is would be going back on (deprecated template usage) objectionable by me, i.e., he'd be treating the latter as a phrase, contrasting (deprecated template usage) is with (deprecated template usage) is un-, which would make (according to above argument) (deprecated template usage) un- a clitic, and thus (deprecated template usage) unobjectionable uninclusible. (He didn't actually say "The change itself is unobjectionable by me, but this means of making it is", so I was exaggerating in an attempt at humor. But he came close, I think.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So in "'I liked it!' 'You did?", do we conclude that "liked it" is three words, "like it" + "-ed", and "You did [like it]?" is ellipsis for two of them? —RuakhTALK 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
       :-)  Maybe so.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2.   Abstain, modification has actually been done, and nobody's objected, so, meh. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision edit

    8-0-2 - Passes. --Daniel 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor_ELE_fix&oldid=26340263"