Talk:aspect

Primary definition in modern US English

I added this[1] definition somewhat flippantly sometime ago thinking that it would be promptly reviewed. I left the period off hoping that would prompt someone to edit it at least once. I took the definition word for word from the top definition of another prominent online dictionary, so there may be issues around plagiarism. I feel like the rest of the page should better reflect this definition, for instance the Synonyms offered do not apply to this definition.--184.63.132.236 11:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Like virtually all dictionaries we plagiarize mercilessly - where it is legal, from certain out of copyright sources such as MW 1913, Century 1911, and early volumes of the OED. What is more of a problem are copyright violations, of which this would be one.

Indeed it is probably the most common sense, but it has apparently arisen only in the last century, not being in the above-mentioned dictionaries. It does appear in Webster's 2nd International (1935). DCDuring TALK 13:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked back in just out of curiosity to see if anyone is patrolling this wiki or not to find that the definition was removed without comment from an edit by DCDuring (above) which also included other changes. Out of concern I've rephrased the definition to read "Any specific feature, part, or element of a thing." and placed it again at the #1 spot, where I believe it belongs--184.63.132.236 11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Old (?) aeronautical sense?

Webster 1913 supplement has this, which makes little sense to me. Is it a sense we are missing? "(Aeronautics) A view of a plane from a given direction, usually from above; more exactly, the manner of presentation of a plane to a fluid through which it is moving or to a current. If an immersed plane meets a current of fluid long side foremost, or in broadside aspect, it sustains more pressure than when placed short side foremost. Hence, long narrow wings are more effective than short broad ones of the same area." Equinox ◑ 22:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

aspect in grammar and German translations

In German there are the two words Aspekt and Aktionsart. Their meaning is vague, but at least sometimes there is a difference between these words and it is said that this difference was made ca. 1910 (Agrell, 1908 or 1911: "Unter Aktionsart verstehe ich [...] nicht"). In English the German difference is sometimes expressed with adjectives before "aspect"^* or by using the German terms as it is done in An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Aktionsart (earlier Actionsart) is an older term though, not invented by Agrell, and earlier had another meaning. E.g. it is said in Kritik und Phrase that Herbig (1896) used Zeitart and Aktionsart for both Aspekt and Aktionsart of Agrell's terminology, that is both Zeitart and Aktionsart had the same meaning as English aspect. When one makes a difference between Aspekt and Aktionsart (which should be more common nowadays), then there is no translation for English aspect. Depending on the context, Aspekt or Aktionsart is the term to choose ("or" also includes and, so English aspect can also be Aspekt und Aktionsart in German). PS: In German one can find statements like "verbinhärenten Aspekt (Aktionsart) oder den grammatischen Aspekt" which should be younger andAspekt there should have the same meaning as English aspect.

* Aktionsart could be semantic[al] or lexical aspect (often refering to durative, iterative etc.), while Aspekt could be grammatic[al] aspect (often refering to perfective/imperfective).

-eXplodit (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC) & 22:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)