Talk:Caponier

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caponier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104133834/http://undergroundkent.co.uk:80/caponier_fort_amherst.htm to http://www.undergroundkent.co.uk/caponier_fort_amherst.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828224609/http://www.espele.net:80/militar/catalunya/sant_julia/sant_julia.html to http://www.espele.net/militar/catalunya/sant_julia/sant_julia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of term

I would think the etymology is a useful part....especially after it's been up so long, wrong, on wikipedia; if it does not belong in the lead, where should it go? Anmccaff (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC) PS: rv erroneous change, rm out-of-context sentence what, precisely do you see as erroneous and out of context, @Eric:?

this cite from [CNRTL], gives:

CAPONNIÈRE, subst. fém.

A.− FORTIF. Chemin enterré qui, dans une enceinte fortifiée, permet le passage d'un ouvrage à l'autre : Il établit des engins de guerre formidables, qu'il protège par les bastions, les caponnières, les saillants, les fossés garnis d'écluses pour déformer subitement l'aspect d'un siège; ... Valéry, Variété 1,1924, p. 252. Rem. On rencontre dans ce sens la forme chaponnière ds Ac. 1842, Littré, Lar. 19e, Lar. 3, DG. B.− P. anal., CH. DE FER. Niche aménagée dans la paroi d'un tunnel permettant aux ouvriers de s'abriter au passage d'un train (cf. J.-N. Haton de La Goupillière, Cours d'exploitation des mines, 1905, p. 495). Prononc. et Orth. : [kapɔnjε:ʀ]. Ds Ac. 1694-1932. Étymol. et Hist. 1671 « abri de fortification » (Pomey). Empr. à l'ital. cap(p)oniera attesté comme terme milit. au xviies. (Montecuccoli ds Batt.) et au sens propre de « cage où l'on engraisse les chapons » au xives. sous la forme du lat. médiév. caponaria (DEI), dér. de cappone (chapon*); les rapports de capponeria et de l'esp. caponera terme milit. au xviies. (Al.) sont difficiles à établir. Fréq. abs. littér. : 5. Bbg. Hope 1971, pp. 279-280. − Kohlm. 1901, p. 16. − Rupp. 1915, p. 49.

Note that bit about the proper sense, "cage for fattening capons." Anmccaff (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, regarding your revert of my changes, which I undid: First, I looked up caponnière in several places before I took out "capon house". Some sources, like the one you cite above, speculate that the word might have some origin related to housing of fowl--and it looks like it does--but that does not appear definitive across sources. And I would guess that French speakers do not picture a chicken house when they come across the word. In any case, I don't think it belongs as a definitive statement in the second sentence of the article. The etymology could be presented in a subsection of the history section. Second, I took out the sentence that starts "The fire coming from the feature..." because it is completely out of context with what what comes before and after it. "The fire", "the feature", and "the attendant ditch" are presented as if they relate to something the reader has already encountered in the text, though they have not been established as relating to anything written before that sentence. It appears to have been clumsily copied/adapted out of the Britannica definition. Much of the writing in this article is similarly problematic--fragmented and unencyclopedic in style. Eric ^talk 13:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

First point. Don't rename the section like that, when the title flows into the first sentence. Doing so without re-adding it to the body makes the first sentence incomprehensible.

Next, we have two actual cites here, Britannica and CNRTL, that unequivocally state this is the etymology. This isn't a matter of Some sources, like the one you cite above, speculating, but rather solid sources definitivly pronouncing it so. You are putting what, exactly, against this?

Next, what you or I would guess isn't the most relevant thing here, But I would guess that a francophone, confronted with a word that starts with "capon" followed by a common and unremarkable suffix would certainly think that there might be a bird or two about.

Finally fixing a problem with flow by removing relevant information isn't fixing anything, just breaking it in a new and different way. Anmccaff (talk)

I think talkpage section names should be somewhat informative to those visiting for the first time, No offense, but to me it looked more like a chat room thread before.

Cites: I was referring to the CNRTL cite above, not the Britannica one in the article, which looks to me like it was simply translated from a French source. I think we would write "literally" nowadays instead of "properly", but I can't say that that would apply to Britannica encyclopedists a hundred years ago.

I agree re relevance and the bird imagery. I just meant that, to give an obliquely analogous anglophonic example (yikes, that was fun to write, but not pretty to read!), you and I might not be the norm in thinking "wagon-maker" when introduced to a Sam Wainwright.

Re "fixing": In principle, I agree, but that sentence really looks like a lost fragment to me, and I wasn't prepared to tackle reorganizing the entire article.

Note: Prompted by a peek into the OED, I found what I think is a good source in Google Books and added it as a ref in the article. Eric ^talk 15:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was informative enough if you read the first paragraph; moving it is one thing, but just replacing it and leaving the remainder of the first sentence hanging ain't a good idea, especially if someone else's signature is on it. I'll write my own gibberish, thankyouverymuch.

A surprising number of Francophones recognize that their "Ch" is the Anglophones "C" (and the Quebecker's "J", Spaniard's "G", etc). This is less like a word that has passed from common usage -"wain", and more like one which has predictably changed over the years. We see "dogge", our first thought isn't "what the hell?" it's "ye olde spellyng", even if we wouldn't know our Eth from a hole in the ground.

I still would use "proper", but that might be a diminishing usage, yeah.

two etymological bits that might be relevant, but would remain OR for now: "capon" survived (-s?) late with hard "C" for a trickster, and a "caponner" was (is?) a verb for card-sharping. This might have played into "caponniere", or might even derive from it. There's also some monkish word connections, but, again, at best speculative, and at worst OR. Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)