Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2022 April 22
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 21 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 23 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 22
[edit]What is the number in at the time place?
[edit]Rogart Brooch contains the phrase "Although the number in at the time place is unknown, two were passed on ...". This isn't vandalism or a botched edit, it's been written thus since the article first started. What is it trying to say? Card Zero (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's saying that the number discovered in the hoard at the time it was unearthed was not recorded. The whole of the lead could to with rewording and reformatting as it's a bit of a mess. (I might later if nobody else does.) Bazza (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree -- "the number [of brooches] in the place at the time" is the obvious reading. AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, is it "the number in (at the time) place"? I guess "the number in place at the time" is the gentlest way to fix it. Card Zero (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I cannot access the cited source, but here it is cited as stating that the Rogart hoard consisted of 11 brooches, of which two full brooches and four fragments survive. I find it difficult to reconcile this with the phrase in our article. --Lambiam 14:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: I've updated the article to fix grammar, spellings and citations, including Anderson 1881's version on Google Books. I haven't included your information from above (although I noted it was in the referenced [1]); it contradicts the Anderson 1881 reference. Be my guest (and please update anything I've messed up as well). Bazza (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work. What do you think about the "two lozenge shaped semi-circular terminals"? I'm inclined to think that's a terrible description of their actual shape (and the helpful link to lozenge does nothing to clarify it, or explain how a lozenge can be a semicircle). What I see in the image are eight semi-circular quadrants of two cloverleaf-shaped terminals. Card Zero (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and reworded! Bazza (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work. What do you think about the "two lozenge shaped semi-circular terminals"? I'm inclined to think that's a terrible description of their actual shape (and the helpful link to lozenge does nothing to clarify it, or explain how a lozenge can be a semicircle). What I see in the image are eight semi-circular quadrants of two cloverleaf-shaped terminals. Card Zero (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: I've updated the article to fix grammar, spellings and citations, including Anderson 1881's version on Google Books. I haven't included your information from above (although I noted it was in the referenced [1]); it contradicts the Anderson 1881 reference. Be my guest (and please update anything I've messed up as well). Bazza (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I cannot access the cited source, but here it is cited as stating that the Rogart hoard consisted of 11 brooches, of which two full brooches and four fragments survive. I find it difficult to reconcile this with the phrase in our article. --Lambiam 14:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)