Definitions using x & y[change]
Even though these are not typically used in dictionaries, such definitions have a number of advantages: They clearly differentiate the agent and the patient. They also allow for the widest variety of participants including humans, animals, and inanimates. Compare:
- If X is blocking Y, then Y can't go past X.
- If something is being blocked by an object, then it can't go past the object.
The second definition is too narrow in that it requires that the block be an object. Yet, it could be a person (police blocking the road) or even a situation.
You could, of course, have a list of somethings and someones, but it becomes unwieldy.--Brett 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand, but what if the reader doesn't have an understanding of such basic algebraic concepts? I mean, Simple was also designed for kids.--TBC 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me. In my experience, kids don't use dictionaries to find out what words mean.--Brett 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think either wording is perfectly understandable and thus perfectly acceptable. As to whether or not SE Wikt is being used by kids, I think we need to expect that that's a possibility. After all, many of our users here will be from SE Wikipedia who have gotten here from either an in-text link or a template saying we have a definition of it here, and SE WP is intended not only for users whose native language is not English, but also children, people with learning disabilities, and "average" adults looking for a simple/shorter explanation of a complicated or long topic. · Tygrrr... 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)