Talk:Book of hours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Clarification and English Expression[edit]

The Latin word hours is horae, the English term primer is usually only used to refer to books of hours written in English.

These two parts joined by a comma are two separate sentence. To the uninitiated they are meaningless, they are not link and they are not useful. Take the first part: "The Latin word for hours is horae". Is this telling us that the word "hours" comes from the Latin "horae"?

"the English term primer is usually only used to refer to books of hours written in English". This is interesting but because it includes the word "only" the sentence presumes that the reader knows that the word "primer" is used, and is telling the reader how and when to use it. It should probably state something like "The word "primer" is sometimes used to refer to books of the hours that are written in English."

This is not my subject. Could someone who knows the subject tidy up the language? Amandajm (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've discovered the source of the problem. User PeterKidd removed a great deal of what he perceived as useless and repetitive material. This had the result of turning parts of the article into gibberish, intelligible only to the initiated. The clear statement that the Latin word was Horae and the English word was "primer" is one of the things that he removed. I'm reverting all his edits, and you lot can reread this article very thoroughly in order to decide what the ordinary reader needs. Please don't chop it about so ruthlessly that it looses clarity.

Amandajm (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)