Talk:Peridot

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 7 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Denniskuipers. Peer reviewers: Rumbling Octopus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stellar minerals

this revert "22:45, 23 May 2005 Grenavitar m (rv - it is not found on the sun....)" is silly; I presume you've been to the sun to collect minerals and didn't find any?

Silly - no. Have you collected peridot on the moon? I found no source for peridot on the moon, although it is likely considering the lunar rock compositions re: olivine. Peridot is gemstone quality olivine - if you have a ref. for peridot on the moon then re-add the lunar bit. Vsmith 16:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Many dictionaries put the "pear-a-dot" pronunciation first, before "pear-a-doe". Some only have the "pear-a-dot" listed, for example "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" is very definite and lists only one form, "per' i dot'".

Most gem and jewelery tradesmen use "pear-a-doe", and some are very definite in calling the "-dot" form as incorrect. If you believe dictionaries and encyclopedias, however, you have to conclude they are being near-sighted.

Peridot was first mined in quantity in the U.S. in the area of Peridot, Arizona. The name of that town is pronounced "pear-a-dot".

Thus in the interest of accuracy, I think the pronunciation in Wikipedia should follow that of the majority of on-line dictionaries as "pear-a-dot" or "pear-a-doe", i.e., both forms should be included. Also, the IPA in the original article actually pronounces to "-dot" in contradiction to the single "-doe" form present.

Still, I've corrected the IPA a little. The /ɑ/ in "dot" should not have a length mark after it (it's British English that has /ɑ:/, but in "dart", not "dot"). And the middle syllable is "i", not "uh", i.e. /ɪ/ not /ə/. (Yes, some dialects do distinguish them, even when unstressed, as in Lenin / Lennon.) 91.107.159.113 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to have changed it back. Please. The last syllable can be "dot" or "doe", but NOT "dart". That's just stupid. 91.107.169.128 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just been fiddling with the pronunciation - I should've read this talk page first, there's some useful info here which means I'll have to change some of it back again to keep you happy! ;o) I'll do that, then comment again here when I'm done. Nortonius (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm done, see what you think. What set me off on this was, while the word "peridot" is used internationally, there was only a ref to US pronunciation, which would confuse many non-US English speakers - I for one had to do a double take on it. So, I originally came to this talk page because (bear with me, this is offered in an international spirit!) it occurred to me that US pronunciation could actually be unhelpful here. By that I mean, wouldn't it be better to cover global English pronunciation of "peridot" by citing just British English pronunciation, as then a speaker of any other nation (e.g. Australia, NZ, SA, Canada, US...) would automatically pronounce it according to their own local variation?

Also, perhaps more importantly, you've now got a very long explanation of the pronunciation of "peridot", and that would shorten it. As would removing the pronunciation ending in a "doh"/"doe" sound: judging by the etymology in the article, that would seem to be based on a mistaken assumption that the word is French in origin, so would be irrelevant. Discuss. Politely, now! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this issue was last discussed the preceding December, and I raised it again 10 days ago. Obviously it's not grabbing much attention. But I happen to know it'll be getting more views than it might have done previously, via a newly added link in a fairly popular online game. So - I'll go ahead with reducing that explanation of pronunciation to a manageable level - if you have different ideas, I'd be grateful if you'd raise them here, rather than just reverting the edit. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a footnote, I bought a necklace for a present this afternoon and the silversmith (British) called the stone peri-doe. That does support the point above that the pronunciation is common in the trade; therefore I suggest should be retained regardless of whether some dictionaries fail to mention it. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair point! I left it in there, anyway - I think "peri-doe" is just what you might call faux French, but I'm sure it's a common usage! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of how badly I'm necro-posting here, but it seems a bit dubious to cite the name of the location where the gem was first mined in quantity as supporting evidence for pronouncing it "-daht". That peridot mine is a world away, both in distance and in time, from the place(s) where the gem was first mined at all and/or named. Lingual shifts occur, as do mistakes and assumptions. It only requires one person, who knew the name from a book and never heard it pronounced, to name the area after the gem and propagate their mistake to later generations who have no other pronunciation guide. That being said, English is a living language and any pronunciation used in quantity becomes an accepted pronunciation. My point is really just that "-doe" should not be discounted just because of "-daht" being associated with a commercial mine. I personally would take the industry's pronunciation ("-doe") and allow that the other ("-daht") as an accepted alternative. Felice Enellen (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a shame that the "pear-a-dot" and "pear-a-doe" notation was removed and replaced by the more esoteric but more technical and perhaps accurate " /ˈpɛərɪˌdɑt/, /ˈpɛərɪˌdɑʊ/" symbolism. This means that someone interested in the pronounciation will have to spend time and effort to learn those symbols and tediously sound the words out. Before this change, almost anyone, including young children and us old folks, would get the pronounciation at a glance. And if you're trying to make a point in the article about how it should be pronounced, I'm afraid it's completely lost to 90% of the readers now. They'll skip over the pronounciation symbols. Also, it's quite telling that in this very discussion people used "doe" and "dot" instead of "/ˈpɛərɪˌdɑt/, /ˈpɛərɪˌdɑʊ/". I think this says that the "doe-dot" is clearer and easier to use, even by you learned individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.211.217 (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a vote in favour of restoring "pear-a-dot" etc. to the article. But, I would dispute its grounds. There's nothing "learned" - beyond the ability to read information on a computer monitor, and click on links in a browser window - about using an internationally recognised phonetic system here, versions of which are to be found in most dictionaries. It's actually easier to follow this system here than it is in the average dictionary, since here the reader can click on the blue linked word to find the information they need, rather than fumbling for the relevant appendix.

Regarding prior use of "pear-a-dot" etc. on this talk page, I think it's clear that primarily this reflects the former existence of this slightly patronising method of explanation in the article: if it hadn't already been there, perhaps people would've been less likely to use it here. In the very first comment in this thread, the editor used both "pear-a-dot" etc. and a style based on a phonetic system. But, it also reflects the fact that it's easier to type. Once the editors have done that hard work for the reader, by establishing which characters to use in representing the word phonetically, it is then much easier for a reader who is unfamiliar with this system to then click on the example in blue, and spend a few seconds introducing themselves to it.

I think it's patently obvious that a large proportion of the readership for any article like this may be unfamiliar with any phonetic system, but then I doubt that this group would necessarily coincide with a group of "readers who want to know how to pronounce the word". In any case those readers, by definition, are already likely to take the trouble to find out, and, as I say, all they need do is click on the link. In the meantime, it's not a word that can easily be mispronounced: I suspect that the guidance on pronunciation is only here at all because there are two parallel forms of pronunciation actually in use, within both British English and US English to name but two. The reader is free to take their pick. Having said all of that, I think it's also worth pointing out that Wikipedia obviously aspires to be an encyclopedia, not what one might call a "coffee table book" on gems; and, there simply isn't room for all approaches. While the current approach is suitable for Wikipedia, there are plenty of online alternatives, such as this one (where, incidentally, no attempt is made to show the reader how to pronounce "peridot"). Nortonius (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I feared that you would launch a verbosity to justify your position, which I think you just called "slightly patronizing" but I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I agree completely there's nothing "learned" about this, you just failed to recognize the sarcasm in my statement - sorry for being too subtle. I just checked five dictionaries and two encyclopedias around the house, including two from Webster, and Merriam-Webster. While they use various modifications of the alphabet, diaereses, umlauts, upside-down letter, etc., none use the more esoteric and harder to interpret IPA. Here's what the on-line American Heritage Dictionary uses: [1]. But what do they know compared to your learned and extreme expertise in this matter! They must not have taken the trouble you did to see that the general reader who comes to their compendiums will only need a few seconds to decode the IPA. That's their loss and Wikipedia's gain. You've soundly convinced me they're all wrong. So no need to lower ourselves to the level of the earlier editor and include those low class common pronounciation aids. It's just way too much trouble for the tiny bit of gain it would give us. So launch another verbosity and we'll consider the discussion ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.211.217 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing, I'm sure. If you have a serious point to make, I suggest you make it seriously; and, it was neither your position nor mine that I described as "slightly patronising", but the use of "pear-a-dot" etc. to identify pronunciation - just in case you were having trouble following what I was saying. Since when is reasoned argument "verbosity"? Oh - sorry - you already 'consider the discussion ended'. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on my excursion into Middle English and Medieval Latin etymology, I'd say that if you're in England it's "Peri-dot", and if you're in France it's "peri-doe". (I'll take pear-ee vs pear-a- as regional English variations). Or if you want to be perversely pedantic go with the latin and say "Peri-dote" (peri-dotum rhymes with scro-tum)!!! Alanf777 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't think peridot is derived from the Gk for 'gold stone'. It is the alternative name for peridot, chrysolite, not much used now, that is derived from Gk khrusos (gold) + lithos (stone). That, at least, I propose to delete. According to the OED the etymology of peridot is uncertain, also unlikely to be from the Arabic cited here. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought to have a look at this issue. Chrysolite, it seems, is a synonym for olivine, of which peridot is a type, so it is indeed irrelevant to the etymology of peridot. Regarding peridot itself, my Shorter OED simply says 'of unknown origin', beyond late Middle English and Old French. Not having access to a copy of the OED which cites a classical Latin precedent, or rejects a connection with an Arabic word, I can only comment that there is nothing inherently unlikely in an Arabic word lying behind an Old French or Middle English one; or, an Arabic word may itself be derived from, or represent a parallel form to, a classical Latin one. Either way, I think the Arabic word is of interest, and deserves to be retained in the article, at least as it presently is. On the other hand, I'm a little sceptical of the diacritic used in the example of "Anglo-Norman pedoretés", and more so of the classical Latin as presented. The classical Latin requires an ending (in e.g. "-us", "-a" or "-um", depending on declension), which isn't given here. Also, the form "paederos" is in fact classical Greek in origin (cf. here), and only occurs in Medieval Latin - that I've found, anyway. So, I'll delete "paederos" now, and it would be good if a full version of classical Latin "paederot-", including an ending, could be inserted in the article - I'd do it now, but it doesn't occur in any of the Latin resources I have to hand, or can find online. Posting a direct quote from the cited OED here might be helpful, thanks. Nortonius (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a MW french-derivation -- and found earlier references than MW's !!!! I'm also tracking down a 1200 English reference (I only have an 1800's translation from the Latin). Of course, this is more history than etymology. If it gets too complicated I'll break it out of etymology. Alanf777 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Added a bunch of stuff from the Middle English Dictionary -- and elaborated the Matthew Paris entry. Separated the French examples into a paragraph. I've got lots more links -- including some inter-monastery envy (!!) -- but I think that's enough. I'll come back and change the ref's to cites if there are no objections to the entry as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Drat! The quote I used was from the register, not by Paris. Deleted. Alanf777 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of French etymology : it's relevant because some sources say it's a French word, and should be pronounced -OH and not -DOT. Alanf777 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I object to the deletion of almost the entire section on etymology -- with an incomplete, badly-formed entry by an unregistered user. Reverted to previous version. Do not re-delete without talking and getting consensus first. Alanf777 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I believe the Steven Universe character Peridot bears mentioning in this article, given the proportion of images in a Google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.21.193 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Actually, how about making a separate article called Peridot (Steven Universe) instead? That would be a bit better. Zakawer (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree: Coincidentally named fictional characters are outside the scope of this mineralogy article. There already exists a List of Steven Universe characters with an entry for Peridot. There is no need to create a Peridot (Steven Universe) article, and it definitely does not belong in this article.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: N–Z contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Peridot

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Persistent trivia

Presently, this article has Pending Changes protection (set to expire 23:42, 25 October 2020 UTC). I've noticed continued test edits and attempts to re-add the In popular culture section after having already been declined. The page protection was added a month ago—early—but increasing the level of page protection will be considered if it warrants such a request.

The inclusion of fictional characters coincidentally named Peridot is outside the scope of this article. If someone disagrees with this, they are welcome open a discussion as to why the inclusion does not go against MOS: Trivia sections § "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

One of only two - what's the other?

Intro says it is one of only two gems formed in the mantel - but what is the other one!

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 17 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Denniskuipers (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rumbling Octopus.

— Assignment last updated by Naeim9146 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Chrysolith" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chrysolith has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 § Chrysolith until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)