Talk:Were: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:46, 10 January 2024

Linguistics: Etymology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

Untitled

oppose merger. This term has a specific meaning used in literature for a type of creature and in horror and fantasy genres. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word has Indoeuropean origin. Sanscrit vira. Latin vir. But it has survived only in modern Baltic languages: Lithuanian vyras, Latvian vīrs. --Profesoriux (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other version (from warg - "someone outside the ‘world’, a socially deviant outsider; more specifically, a criminal and an outcast"), see Blécourt W. de. The Differentiated Werewolf: An Introduction to Cluster Methodology // Werewolf Histories / Ed. by W. de Blécourt. — Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. — P. 2. — 280 p. — (Palgrave Historical Studies in Witchcraft and Magic). — ISBN 1137526343, ISBN 9781137526342 --Бериллий (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of "wer(e)man"

Are there any sources for the existence of "wer(e)man"? I've been unable to find any, and from the looks of it the word never existed at all in Old English, at least not with this sense. Lingvulo (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no legitimate source that uses "werman". It appears to be based on the term "wifmann" applied to males. Going by other sources, Anglo-Saxons either used just "mann" to refer to male humans or used "wæpnedmann" to specify a male human. I've already removed it, and it appears this page is in need of some cleanup. Auzewasright (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on the Links

I have a few remarks to this article, but English is not my first language and I'm not well versed in the topic of shapeshifters. While I wouldn't want to change/delete those links on my own, somebody with a deeper understanding of this material might want to look into it:

Weregild seems unrelated to shapeshifters, unless the user who added it was referring to the Beowulf poem. In which case it should rather link to Beowulf.
Also: The Mannaz article seems to be missing what made this page's authors originally refer to that page. Maybe it was removed or maybe they forgot to add it themselves.

Thank you for your time and/or assistance. --80.141.74.84 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2024

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Were → Were (word)
Were (disambiguation) → Were

– (other dab modifier suggestions welcome) Sure, this is part of the etymology of werewolf, but I can't imagine this is the primary topic readers expect to see at this title. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It appears to be the primary topic, if you "can't imagine" it then maybe take a look at the pageviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should've phrased more specifically: Because almost all results for were in Google Books, Scholar, etc. are not for this topic but for the verb, readers may be surprised to find this at this title. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since "were" the verb is also a (word), I think I should modify this request to move to Were and wer in line with the lede, unless someone has a better modifier. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, so we still keep the primary redirect for now, but gain the ability to measure better what the people looking up "were" were aiming for. --Joy (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Primary topic. They're all words! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd per WP:ASTONISH. The 1st proposed move has an issue of incomplete disambiguation, but I would support Were (noun) or similar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. The eight-sentence stub delineating "Were and wer are archaic terms for adult male humans and were often used for alliteration with wife as "were and wife" in Germanic-speaking cultures" does not appear to be primary over the nine other entries listed upon the Were (disambiguation) page. As for the parenthetical qualifier, "were" appears to function as a noun, adjective or verb. Thus, the proposed Were (word) would encompass all uses ~~or, if preferred by consensus, Were (part of speech)~~. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Were (word) is not that it is a bad title in isolation. The problem is that if it is not the primary topic for "Were", mainly due to conflict with the verb form of "to be", then it also cannot be the primary topic of "Were (word)". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *'''Support 2nd''' per [[WP:ASTONISH]]. The 1st proposed move has an issue of incomplete disambiguation, but I would '''support [[Were (noun)]]''' or similar. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' per nomination and King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. The eight-sentence stub delineating "Were and wer are archaic terms for adult male humans and were often used for alliteration with wife as "were and wife" in Germanic-speaking cultures" does not appear to be primary over the nine other entries listed upon the [[Were (disambiguation)]] page. As for the parenthetical qualifier, "were" appears to function as a noun, adjective or verb. Thus, the proposed [[Were (word)]] would encompass all uses<s> or, if preferred by consensus, [[Were (part of speech)]]</s>.&nbsp;—[[User:Roman Spinner|'''Roman Spinner''']] <small>[[User talk:Roman Spinner|(talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Roman Spinner|contribs)]]</small> 14:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
+*:The problem with [[Were (word)]] is not that it is a bad title in isolation. The problem is that if it is not the primary topic for "Were", mainly due to conflict with the verb form of "to be", then it also cannot be the primary topic of "Were (word)". -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 17:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)