Talk:Threshing board

Threshing board received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Fasten your seatbelts

We may be in for a bumpy ride. Here are a couple of notes left on my talk page by the author of the original Spanish-language article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soy el autor del artículo original es:trillo (agricultura). ¡Gracias por la traducción!, pero es muy complicada debido a la gran cantidad de terminos agrícolas en desuso, no hablo muy bien el inglés, pero si puedo ser útil en algo avisadme.

Un saludo--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchos términos son desconocidos para los españoles incluso, pues el trillo dejó de usarse hace mucho tiempo y luego está la gacería, pero si hacéis las cosas tan bien como me imagino y si sois tan rápidos contestando a los mensajes, seguro que tendréis éxito. ¡Ánimo!--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some help about the non industrial agriculture and about the threshing boards in: Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage (EARTH)--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 09:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parva

Parva: Mies tendida en la era para trillarla, o después de trillada, antes de separar el grano. [1]

(Bale of grain tied by hand with its own straw and broad in the threshing floor)

Is there an English word for it? How about simply "grains (spread on the ground)"? -- Ignacio Errico 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"on the threshing floor" rather than "on the ground". But I'd hope we can find an equivalent term with some research. Where do you get "broad" in the above? or did you mean to write "board"? - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, it is a mistake of translation due to my low level of English. I wonted to say that «Parva» is the crop of cereal just after the harvest and just before the thresh, it is the straw with the ear and the old spanish farmer say parva when the crop is spread (not broad, sorry) on the ground for thresh it--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I should have corrected that -- I'd copied and pasted it) -- Ignacio Errico 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~So is this basically what we would call "grain in the husk"?~~

My dictionaries all give things like "haystack" or just "pile of unthreshed grain". It sounds like the meaning here is a little more specialized; I suspect we may not have an English word. - Jmabel | Talk 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be a very specific term. According to the DRAE definition (the one cited above), it's not really a pile, so I don't think that haystack means the same thing, but it's the closest I can think of too. Haystack, as I understand it, is something that you store, while parva is there on the floor waiting to be threshed, if it hasn't been threshed yet. -- Ignacio Errico 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just go for "grain spread on the threshing floor" or some such. Is that OK with you? - Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. My dictionary says "heap of grain"

Picture Captions

This is my first pop at translation on wikipedia so I'll put it here

Comercio de obsidiana en el 4º milenio antes de Cristo: Obsidian trade routes in the 4th Millenium BC/BCE
Tableta grabada procedente de Kish, datada en el 3350 adC, con representación de trillos en sus dos caras: Tablet from Kish, dated to 3350 BC/BCE, depicting threshing boards on both sides
Ejemplar de trillo de pequeño tamaño procedente de Túnez ; Example of a small threshing board from Tunisia
Impresión de un cilindro-sello procedente de Arslantepe-Malatya (Turquía), representando una trilla ritual con trillo, datada en el III milenio adC: Impression from a cylinder_seal from Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey), depicting a ritual thresh/threshing (I am no agricultural historian), dated to the third millenium BC/BCE
El Rey David, por Pedro Berruguete: King David, by Pedro Berruguete
Trillo utilizado como puerta.: A threshing board being used as a door
La toza del pino, de la que se sacan los listones: Pine segment (unless you have a better word for machine processed wood) from which the strips are made
Los listones alineados, antes de formar el trillo: The strips lined up before being used to make the threshing board
Escopleando el listón: Chiseling the strip
Los listones encolados, como estarían en las cárceles: The glued strips, as they would be in the press (cárceles may be a technical term, I'm using the alternate as in the article)
Colocación de cabezales con grandes clavos de hierro: Fixing of the crossbeams with large iron nails
Colocación de las tablillas tapajuntas en las junturas: Fixing of the seam covers (lit. fixing of the tapajuntas splints over the seams, tapajuntas meaning seam cover)
Estructura de madera terminada, a falta de su empedrado: The final wooden structure awaiting paving (not sure if you have a word a bit more congruent with the article, but it certainly works)
Gancho para la tracción: Hook for traction (grip anybody?)
Diversos tipos de mazas y martillos habituales en el taller de un briquero: Various types of hammer (I'm tempted to translate maza as mallet, but I figure it's redundant) commonly found in a briquero's (if it's not in rae.es I'm not even trying) workshop
Briquero tallando sílex: A briquero shaping the silex
Enchiflera empedrando un trillo: Enchiflera (I figure whistler or professonal drives people crazy person are wrong) paving a threshing board
Detalle del empedrado en primer plano, una lasca con un fuerte desgaste (lustre); las demás conservan el filo en buen estado: Detail of the lithic flakes of flint inlaid on the wood: Close up is a heavily worn chip (glossy); the rest are still reasonably sharp
Threshing de rastro Palestine, 1937[35]: Palestinian threshing board, 1937

My dictionary smells like hand soap for some reason--Shadebug 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary

I can see that some terms are going to come up over and over, so let's start a glossary. Also, if some of these turn out to be wrong, we can argue it here rather than for each individual instance. - Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

animal de tiro

draft animal

briquero

??? it seems to be something like "maker of threshing-boards," but in some places seems confined to people who chip off the lithic flakes . A person who chips off stone flakes is a "knapper"

word in the slang so-called Gacería, it refers to a craftsman that makes all stages in the making of «trillo»: both the work of wood (or carpentry) and knapping the flint, even the sale (Peddler). A briquero also travel for repair the trillos that have loose some of its flakes and makes another agricultural implements, like sieves, forks, rakes, stools that sales too... --Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chinas de pedernal

?? something made of flint. I'm stumped.

Simply, it is a lithic flake as talk the peasants or the craftsmen that make a threshing-board (it must be a traditional slang)

era

threshing floor

gavilla

sheaf

lasca cortical

I translated it as "cortical flake." Is there a better English translation for this technical term?

listón

board / slat

micropercusiones

is this "microabrasions" or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A percusión is a blow that remove a part of material, so, I think that the best word may be scars o microflake fractures--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Microflake fractures" seems awkward. I'm sure there is a proper English term, I'd love to find it out, maybe we should write to an expert. Meanwhile, maybe we should avoid a pseudo-scholarly term and say "microscopic damage from blows to the material". - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm look for in my library and I find this book: Andrefsky, William Jr. (Second edition, 2005). Lithics. Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambidge University Press,. ISBN 13-978-0-52161500-6. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: year (link), in the page 258 says:

Microchipping: «The removal of very small flakes from the edge of a flake tool or biface either from use or from intentional retouching of the edge».

William Andrefsky Jr. is professor of Anthropology at Washington State University and you can find information about this book in Lithics--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

muelo

dirty seed or seed (mixed grain and chaff) before cleaning by winnowing

Really? Not "meal" (coarse flour)? - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. I though that meal was the same of food, and I not to know what is coarse flour--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's another meaning of "meal" ("I ate a meal") but, for example, see cornmeal. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Eneolítico

Not sure what do do with this. The Eneolítico is the Copper Age (sometimes known even in English as "Eneolithic"); I don't know "Neo-Eneolítico", though. Does anyone know what this is? - Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the a way to write jointly about the Neolithic and Copper age (and a common expresion in spanish archaeology), because of somtimes it is very dificult to distinguish them since the level of development is different in the regions of Near East (I can't express better)--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen an English language equivalent. Unless someone can supply one, we should just be more verbose ("Neolithic and Copper Age") - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However the word Eneolithic (in English) gives 36,400 results in Google: [2]--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plostellum punicum / trillo de rodillas

threshing cart

seudorretoque = ???? "pseudo-retouching"? Some sort of technical cerm

If you consider a lithic flake of flint or quartzite, it is said that a flake has retouch when it has a deliberate removal of material from the piece by a man. Howevwer, when the lithic flake has its edge damaged by a natural process or non deliberate blow (for instance, during the use), then, we call them «spontaneous retouchs». The spontaneous retouch is a scar or fracture that are visible by eye and it is included into the wear traces category.--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sílex: while silex exists in English, "flint" is a lot more common.
trillo de rastro: threshing sledge
enchifladora: another word in gacería-slang that refers to a craftswoman that inlays the lithic flakes into the bottom of threshing-board with a special hammer. --Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC), edited for clarity Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

labradores vs. braceros

we should find George Duby's book in English and find out what his terms were that were translated this way into Spanish. I suspect that labrador was yeoman. - Jmabel | Talk 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I bet his original was in French. Anyway, we want whatever terms he used. - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible entries

There must be a template for link with some entries of the Bible, for instance with Bible Gateway--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 15:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps thinking of {{bibleverse}}? - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the Bible entries section may include original research. It includes a fair bit of interpretation of the Bible verses without providing citations (e.g. " The sedentarización [settling down] could cause a religious crisis; for that reason, much effort is put into protecting themselves from external influences"). I don't disagree with the interpretations, but I do think the section should definitely be shortened so that it has less interpretation of the verses.--Fagles 14:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, though I've been translating it. It reads like a wonderful sermon resource, and has some interesting insights for the Christian, but could use some work before being in an encyclopedia. ----Steve 14:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threshing and colloquialisms

Why, even in Spanish, does the section on "The threshing-board in the Bible" begin with a discussion of common sayings in Spanish, which is not a biblical language? Even less appropriate for an article in English. We need to move this material elsewhere, and be explicit that the material about Spanish-language usage is not all applicable to English language usage. Conversely, that new section should also take up English-language usage. In particular, "threshing out" an issue (discussing it at length and possibly with difficulty, ultimately achieving clarity), and two submarines called USS Thresher; I'm sure there is more. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡YES! I think that the paragraph about the origin of the word «trillo» in Spanish has no sense in English-language (it is a little of spanish ethnocentrism): must be moved to another part of the aticle (perhaps a footnote) or better: talk only about it in latin, «tribulum», because in English laguaje exists too the word tribulation, and it is important to understand that the threshing-board was, in the Bible epoch, a punitive implement or a torture device, even a power symbol. I agree with you. The same occurs with others paragraphs. You may consider to change and improve another ones more appropriates for the English article or a global view of the matter (another point of view is welcome and I can ad it to the spanish article).--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 09:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of the etymology of "threshing," "threshing-out" an issue, and submarines called USS Thresher, should probably go in the threshing article rather than here.Fagles 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

treatment of Threshing Carts

I think that threshing carts should be mentioned earlier in the article, probably by moving the "Other threshing implements" section close to the beginning. One source of confusion is that the term "threshing-board" is not exacly the same as "trillo." We need to decide whether threshing carts are a kind of threshing-board, or instead are a different farming implemement that is somewhat similar to threshing-boards. In other words, is this article only about the trillo de rastro, or is it also about the trillo de rodillas? Fagles 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fagles: I have no problem with refactoring this in that respect (either way) once we are done, but let's get it translated first. We're not really in article space right now, anyway; we can resolve the matter when we have a translated article ready to move to article space.

If we do refactor, we should still keep a paragraph or two on threshing carts here with a link to a main article elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Spanish vocabulary

I think I've worked out what we should do with all of the specialized archaic Spanish vocabulary. I think we should have a section in which we talk about how, like many other technologies, threshing by traditional means had its own specialized vocabulary, and then use Spanish as an example. Of course, if we can find analogous English-language examples, we should give those as well. - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plostellum punicum

This is referred to as 'literally "Punic handcart"' and later in the article as 'literally "Carthagininan handcart"'. It means basically the same thing, however I believe it should be one useage throughout the article. This would clear confusion, though this is a minor detail. I have no preference either way, and I need guidance as to which one is more correct and useful.Whetstone333 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with "Carthagininan". I'm the one who used "Punic", I hadn't noticed that the other had been used. They are, of course, interchangeable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we should use "punic cart." There are 40 google hits for "punic cart" and only 2 hits for "carthaginian cart," which suggests that "punic cart" is more common. Whatever you do, don't translate it as "handcart" - a handcart is a cart pulled by people, but the punic cart is pulled by livestock. --Fagles 03:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sled

There are a few places where we say "sled" but perhaps should say "sledge". "Sled" in English tends to connote "snow sled". It's not wrong, just liable to be misread. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting some material

Perhaps there is somewhere that the following belongs, but it is probably not this article:

Something that is beaten is also very stamped on. For this reason, sometimes in Spanish, a beaten path is called a trillo. Metaphorically, something that is very threshed can refer to a very common topic, very rotten. This circumlocution is probably based on the symbolic references of the tribula and the thresh in the Bible.

However, in this chapter we will come up against serious difficulties due to existence of several translations, versions and eschatological interpretations of analyzed biblical entries.

Apart from more erudite interpretations, only to indicate that a great part of the Pentateuch is devoted to reinforcing the inner links of the Jewish community, after the Exodus, an established time in the Promised Land. The Jews, from the time of Abraham, had been a nomadic people (or in continual movement). The sedentarization could cause a religious crisis; for that reason, much effort is put into protecting themselves from external influences, maintaining the purity of their traditions of their morality, and of their religion, trying to avoid contamination from idolaters.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done?

I just finished the last bits of Spanish, except for Doña Mayor's old Spanish (where I asked Locutus of Borg for help). The article still needs plenty of editing, and tracking down the original Georges Duby in French, but I'd say it's ready to go live where more English-speaking eyes will see it and edit it.--Homunq 14:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It needs plenty of editing, but doesn't need more translation. --Fagles 02:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. We still need to track down English-language vocabulary for some of the obscure terms, but it is certainly a lot more useful than our current English-language article. I'll look to see if anything should be merged from that article, then I'll move this into place. - 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

References on translated articles

I see that SandyGeorgia removed the following, claiming that it goes against policy:

This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of 20 November 2006.

I'm not very active in Wikipedia these days, and perhaps guidelines or policy have changed, but as one of the main people who were initially involved in setting up standards for translations of Wikipedia articles from one language to another, I can say with certainty that for several years, and at least as recently as November 2006, guidelines on translation actively encouraged such notices when large portions of articles are translated. A similar notice can be seen, for example, in featured article Paragraph 175. But perhaps the guidelines have recently been changed and that featured article has not been modified appropriately. Anyway, someone probably should try to sort this out.

I know that the process for translation was recently completely reworked; I was involved in the early phases of that, but basically gave up on trying to understand some of where it was headed. So I have no idea now where to look for such guidelines; at a quick glance, discussion of whether to reference the foreign-language article has simply been dropped; I have no idea whether that was a deliberate decision or an inadvertant oversight. - Jmabel | Talk 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Copyrights strongly suggests that such a notice should be there (though those comments are on a talk page, not a project page, which seems to me a bad place to set policy/guidelines). Anyway, I will ping User:SandyGeorgia, who (I hope) will have some comment on this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry to be so long in responding, Jmabel; just returned from travel and am catching up. Your second post above answers the question (talk page vs. article page), but I'll explain further what my understanding was, and from whence it came. During discussions of the now deleted WikiProject ELAC (Extra long article committee), there were discussions on numerous deletion pages of templates they were placing in the article space rather than on talk pages. All of those discussions pointed out long-standing consensus about what types of tags should be placed on talk pages vs. article pages. Tags relating to WikiProjects or other "meta issues" go on talk pages, partly to avoid self-reference, partly to avoid burdening readers with maintenance tasks. Tags about or disputing the content of the article (e.g.; POV) do belong on article pages. Since most of these discussions were on a deleted Project, and I didn't bookmark anything, I'm not really sure where to point you for reference. There were numerous mentions of long-standing discussions about placement of meta tags - perhaps starting at the Village Pump? Another issue is that Wiki isn't a reliable source, so one Wiki can't reliably reference another, meaning there's no good reason for our readers to know about the translation issue - it's a behind-the-scenes sort of deal. Sorry I'm not of more help - my understanding came from wide and varied input of several Wikipedians who had been part of these discussions elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really about citing Wikipedia as a "reliable source". Indeed, in academia at least, acknowledging a source is not about saying that it is absolutely reliable: to an equal extent, it stands as a warning sign, "this information is only as good as this source".

But that's not the main purpose of doing this. The main purposes are (1) compliance with GFDL (otherwise the major contributors in the original language go unacknowledged) and (2) as a "road sign" anyone who is trying to work out who to communicate with if they want to discuss a matter with the author of the article: usually the translator won't have any independent knowledge of the translated material. This last is especially important if the article is somewhat undercited and there is a need to press the original author to account for his/her sources. Think of the reference apparatus as something of an audit trail. This is a lot like citing an intermediate source (i.e., when you quote party A's words from party B's work, like when a newspaper reports a politicians words or when a recent work quotes an older one). - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical references footnote

Here's what the last footnote at the end of the Biblical reference section said of 2 Samuel 12:29-31:

The translation that King James I of England authorized between 1604 and 1611, says:

²⁹And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. ³⁰And he took their king's crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David's head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. ³¹And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

That's not the way the KJV 1611 version looks! Here's what the real 1611 version of the KJV looks like (all of it sic):

²⁹And Dauid gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and tooke it. ³⁰And he tooke their kings crowne from off his head (the weight whereof was a talent of gold, with the precious stones) and it was set on Dauids head, and he brought forth the spoile of the citie in great abundance. ³¹And he brought foorth the people that were therein, and put them vnder sawes, and vnder harrowes of yron, and vnder axes of yron, and made them passe through the bricke-kilne: And thus did he vnto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So Dauid and all the people returned vnto Ierusalem.

The footnote further said:

Many new versions of the Bible soften this episode; for instance, the New King James Version (1982) changes it radically:

²⁹So David gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah, fought against it, and took it. ³⁰Then he took their king’s crown from his head. Its weight was a talent of gold, with precious stones. And it was set on David’s head. Also he brought out the spoil of the city in great abundance. ³¹And he brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works. So he did to all the cities of the people of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.

That's what the 1982 NEW King James version says, but it's not what the real 1964 and 1988 versions of the KJV (not NKJV) actually says! The NKJV is problematic as far as this verse goes. The 1964/1988 KJV says this:

²⁹And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. ³⁰And he took their king's crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David's head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. ³¹And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

Hence there is no difference between this version and that of 1611 (except for typographical differences, they are not mistakes). So the whole footnote and the phrase in the text body was therefore wholly deleted as spurious, and it has nothing to do with the article topic contextually. Mdoc7 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical reference section

I have completely revamped this section; it's mostly (98%) completed now. Mdoc7 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threshing-board → Threshing board — The hyphen is unneeded/unusual. Many thanks in advance --:bdk: 04:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.