User talk:Troodonraptor

Wat?

Your edit to wat:

The word wat can also describe rather distinct lack of names for the temple type itself, due of the fact that first wat temples were made very early in history, first wat temples were made 563 years later when Buddhism came to much popularity.

is so ungrammatical that I don't know what you were trying to say; and whatever you were trying to say, you gave no source. I often write like that, myself, so, you get an "E" for Effort. Pawyilee (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you actually gave me an E. I'm totally flabbergasted. Thank you so much. I try not to make such a mistake second or third time. Troodonraptor (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to be clear is more important than trying to be grammatical. There are editors, User:Writeright for one, who specialize in cleaning up grammar. Now, let's figure out what you were trying to say, and it would help if you have a source! I added this, myself:

A Buddhist site without a minimum of three resident monks cannot correctly be described as a wat, although the term is frequently used more loosely, even for ruins of ancient temples. (As a transitive or intransitive verb, wat means to measure, to take measurements; compare templum, which has the same root as template.)

I haven't been challenged for a source, but if it happens I'll give So Settaputra. I see now that the remark (in parentheses) on the verb needs clarification, so I'm going to change "compare templum, which" to "compare templum, from which temple derives, having the same root as template. Please note that I don't claim the noun and the verb are related; I have just pointed out the similarity between the two, in hopes of avoiding confusion rather than causing it. I may not have succeeded. Pawyilee (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)