Talk:lake
Page contents not supported in other languages.
"Fugitive" is an adjective for "crimson"? Can someone please elaborate. A google search of the web for "fugitive crimson" turned up no supporting evidence. If "fugitive" does modify "crimson", then this meaning should be added to the entry for "fugitive". Thanks. - Joseph D. Rudminr-u-d-m-i-n-j-d (AT) j-m-u (DOT) e-d-u
"fugitive" here must mean "fleeting" or "ephemeral".SemperBlotto19:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems silly to say that this isn't related to Latinlacus. Proto languages are purely hypothetical, you can't make any certain statements about proto languages by definition.Mglovesfun (talk)11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failedWiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Rfd-sense:(In the plural) an area characterised by its many lakes; e.g., the English Lake District is often shortened to The Lakes.. Tagged but not listed. --Liliana•11:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
is excessively vocalised; بٌحيرة is enough, the other vowels being automaticly driven by the following consonant (so is it written in many arabic dictionaries); the last vowal is grammatical, and so is not a part of the frame of the word. Especially seeing that, elsewhere in the wictionary, arabic tranlation arer NOT AT ALL vocalised.
(This point should be discussed elsewhere. Where ?)
--Lucyin (talk)10:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
e.g. "The whole heparinized blood waslaked in distilled water." "Braised pork with chestnuts — a favorite of Chairman Mao, who was born in the province — is studded with red chiles andlaked with chile oil."Equinox◑02:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
German noun "Lake" /laːkə/ describes a mixture of water and salt (brine) used to infuse meat before the drying/smoking process1 and similar food processing (near synonym to marinade). A semantic connection to liquid as introduced by the roots here is prominent in that term. This at least covers the meaning of Chairman Mao's favourite and would support having the requested additional meaning. No proof, but an indication at least. --Chrkl (talk)16:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be merged?176.221.123.1922:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there any serious sources for the assertion thatlac has played absolutely no part in the genesis of the word? Actually,the most comprehensive treatment among online dictionaries only mentions the OE word as an influence, andsome of its more distinguishedcompetition, in their less elaborate treatments, don't find it worth mentioning at all. The references section here doesn't make it clear who asserts what about what.195.187.108.6000:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The following information has failedWiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
‘Scientific’ sense added by an IP.·~dictátor·mundꟾ22:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Here:diff I introduced "or similar liquid" to the basic definition of a lake. I think it's a little questionable (and hence likely to be removed at some point) given that 99% of lakes are water lakes in the human experience. Ultimately though, I think this is definitely justifiable. I don't know of any examples off hand, but I strongly suspect that fantasy and science fiction literature will discuss bona fide lakes make up of non-water liquids. Further,Kraken Mare on Titan a moon of Saturn is a lake slightly larger than theCaspian Sea made up of non-water liquid. This may ultimately make a sort of narrow sense and broad sense, but I think that the concept of 'lake' extends beyond water in the eyes of both scientists, in their recent discoveries, and fiction writers, without regard of actual reality. And what's more, I think that an English speaker that stood on the shore of a lake of hydrocarbons would think of it as a lake, though it not be made up of water. Now, I said "similar" in "or similar liquid" because I think there is a threshold at which the English speaker will see a large liquid expanse which will not be a lake, for instance a large body of a liquid with properties significantly different from water- perhaps its flow pattern is too bizarre. I don't know what form that would take exactly. But it does seem like the English language experience of liquid water is a baseline for the conceptual idea of the lake, hence I don't totally remove 'water' from the definition of lake and replace it with 'liquid'; this would be just too far from the real usage of the word. And to ignore non-water lakes as too fringe is actually a mistake too- people join the concept of lake with other liquids, even lava sometimes. These melt into the second sense ('a large amount of liquid'), but I think there are actual lakes of stuff on Titan and in the imagination which are squarely within the concept of a bona fide lake and are not merely 'a large amount of liquid'. --Geographyinitiative (talk)13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)(modified)
"Despite their similarity in form and meaning, … not related …"
This paragraph does not at all clarify the distinction introduced through supposedly different proto-language roots (*leg- vs. *lókus). On the contrary the examples in both lists seem a totally arbitrary choice.
Confusingly, it even states that Latin lacus is unrelated to Latin lacus, while still linking both instances to the very sameparagraph and article which in turn re-joins the only differences in meaning claimed here (basin/tank vs. pool) back up via "Cognate with Ancient Greek λάκκος (lákkos, 'cistern, tank, pit') and Old English lagu ('sea, ocean, flood')".From what I gather furthermore inlay#Etymology_2 linked there, it makes sense to assert that both distinct roots mentioned here are in truth cognates themselves:
Stems *leg- for behaviour of water and *lagu- for instances of (bodies of) water being accidentally similar, semantically close and supposedly still unrelated is a bit too much of a "phonic" conincidence for a reconstructed language and its inherent fuzzy quality, in my opinion.
To sum it up the division as presented (and linked up) here seems entirely nonsensical and random. Unless someone can do better and more clearly discriminate between the two roots further down the history line by showing (i.e. proving) that the "leaking" root and the "pool" root are truly unrelated, this paragraph needs thorough revision and a much weaker distinction of roots (if justified at all). --Chrkl (talk)15:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)