Jump to content

Talk:Alicorn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.232.250.50 (talk) at 09:02, 28 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Winged Unicorns

Okay, so, I haven't got any... erm... I'm not quite familiar with all the Wikipedian terminology. They're called "reliable" sources, right? Well, I haven't got any of those (yet), but, in the few other places I've seen the subject addressed, it's been treated as incorrect (or, at the very least, confusing in a bad way) usage of the word "alicorn" to refer to a unicorn with wings, and that it is a modern invention. On the other hand, I've got no idea what processes a word has to go through for an "incorrect" usage to, objectively, become "correct", aside from such pervasive and constant misuse that the general populace doesn't know or care anymore.

Frankly, though, it's just bad form to take a word that means something in a certain context (in this case, specifically, "alicorn" meaning "a unicorn's horn" in the context of "fantastic equines"), and then start using it as a Humpty-Dumptyism for something else (in this case, "a unicorn with wings on") in the same context as the original definition. Languages are meant to facilitate communication, and adding "new" definitions to a word that already has one in the field you're applying to is counterproductive.Pigcatapult (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Piers Anthony is the only one to use the term in this way; should it be on the page at all without a solid citation? Thomblake (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many people use the term this way (in fact, a Google image search suggests that this usage is far more common than the traditional usage), so it would be a disservice to readers not to mention it at all. Even if Piers Anthony is the only notable person to use the term this way, we could still cite one of his books as a reference. --Zundark (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the assertion that the usage is correct, since this is certainly disputed (and I don't really know what it would mean for the usage to be "correct" or "incorrect" anyway). --Zundark (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankies. I'm new at this. ^_^;; Pigcatapult (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time

In our time this morning discussed the mythology of unicorns. Alicorn (as a historical medicine) came up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vhfdf