Talk:Lapis lazuli: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "As it is now, the first line effectively says that lapis lazuli is probably lapis lazuli! This needs further editing. --~~~~") |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
As it is now, the first line effectively says that lapis lazuli is probably lapis lazuli! This needs further editing. --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 08:40, 2 August 2016 (CEST) | As it is now, the first line effectively says that lapis lazuli is probably lapis lazuli! This needs further editing. --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 08:40, 2 August 2016 (CEST) | ||
Thanks. I'm pretty sure now, I checked with my doctor. --[[User:Hankop|Hankop]] ([[User talk:Hankop|talk]]) 13:16, 2 August 2016 (CEST) | |||
:I know you are referring to ''mu men'', and don't actually need to consult a doctor to know whether lapis lazuli is lapis lazuli. But there is still an issue with this page: it reads more like a definition of the Tibetan term — which it could be, if we include it in the dictionary section. If it is going to stay as an 'English' entry, we need to include other terms such as ''vaiḍūrya'', even if it is only to dismiss them. But this is a fairly complex issue – even if it is known that the English word 'beryl' actually derives from the same original term as Skt ''vaiḍūrya'' (via Greek and Latin) – but we perhaps need to acknowledge that we translate ''baiḍūrya'' as lapis lazuli all over the place... --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 17:37, 2 August 2016 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:37, 2 August 2016
As it is now, the first line effectively says that lapis lazuli is probably lapis lazuli! This needs further editing. --adam (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2016 (CEST)
Thanks. I'm pretty sure now, I checked with my doctor. --Hankop (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2016 (CEST)
- I know you are referring to mu men, and don't actually need to consult a doctor to know whether lapis lazuli is lapis lazuli. But there is still an issue with this page: it reads more like a definition of the Tibetan term — which it could be, if we include it in the dictionary section. If it is going to stay as an 'English' entry, we need to include other terms such as vaiḍūrya, even if it is only to dismiss them. But this is a fairly complex issue – even if it is known that the English word 'beryl' actually derives from the same original term as Skt vaiḍūrya (via Greek and Latin) – but we perhaps need to acknowledge that we translate baiḍūrya as lapis lazuli all over the place... --adam (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2016 (CEST)