Talk:Achilles' heel

Comments
Does this article really need the stub tag at the bottom? While it is short, I can't think of more to say about it, unless we wanted to list every usage of the term or something else like that. --zandperl 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the stub tag because I think that you are correct. -Elizabennet 00:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It really hurts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.226.106 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's the benefit of having a picture. It makes the concept so much more vivid. Thanks for the feedback. Dr.K. (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the visual and what is missing is what happens to the body; the side effects of slashed or sliced achilles' tendons? Does it affect stature or the legs? I believe that is what is wrong with me and yes, it does hurt immensely. 67.160.98.63 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my understanding which could be wrong is that wounding the achilles heal makes someone immobile and unable to defend themselves, therefore open to attack. The article says that it is popularly believed that Achilles died from the wound itself, but I don't think that is the popular belief.96.251.20.191 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE edit this page. Someone's didn't read it and has added repetition in the origin section. Paragraph one and four are essentially the same! 101.165.118.214 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

acheilles
wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.163.110 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Curing Achilles tendinosis
For a good review of how to cure this debilitating condition read "My Achilles Heel: How to Overcome Achilles Tendinopathy" available on Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.79.5 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Way to sneak in an advertisement! Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Punctuation
So I couldn't help but notice... The title of the page has "Achilles' heel," with an apostrophe after "Achilles"; but, the body of the text (in fact, the very first sentence) omits the apostrophe. Shouldn't this be consistent, one way or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.161.181 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ 72.198.26.61 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The title still has an apostrophe that doesn't belong and is inconsistent with the rest of the document.

Is it suitable?
"According to a myth arising later, his mother had dipped the infant Achilles in the river Styx,[4] holding onto him by his heel, and he became invulnerable where the waters touched him—that is, everywhere except the areas of his heel that were covered by her thumb and forefinger. It is not clear how the waters of the Styx, which silenced the gods for nine years, could confer immortality; or how Thetis could gain access to them; or how Peleus would accidentally discover the project." This line is in the article. If found not suitable, please remove that part. -- 117.221.226.161 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Is there a reason it shouldn't be suitable? It seems suitable to me at face value but I don't know the story that well and can't check the given source for accuracy. S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is not clear how the waters of the Styx, which silenced the gods for nine years, could confer immortality; or how Thetis could gain access to them; or how Peleus would accidentally discover the project.". This seems to be his comment or opinion. As this is a Greek Mythology, he could not make comment on this.--59.90.80.83 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole section is oddly repetitious. But the IPs are certainly correct about the essay-like speculation, which has no business here, even if it's in the source (I can't check it either). I've removed it and clarified the rest of the paragraph too, as long as I was there — it sounded rather as if "Ambrosia" might have been a rival benefactress… whereas ambrosia was of course the liquid Thetis was supposed to have treated her son with. Thanks for your help, 117.221.226.161 and 59.90.80.83. Don't be afraid to edit the article yourself, just remember to give the reason for any changes in the edit summary, or they may be removed. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC).

Prophesized
Your, replacing "prophesized" with "prophesied", stated that usage experts, whoever they may be, prefer the latter, but failing to supply a reference for your assertion. I with a reference for "prophesize" in the edit summary and an invitation for you to supply a reference. You have not only undone my reversion without giving the invited reference for your claim, but have in my editing. At best, this is a failure by you to assume good faith, at worst a personal attack. Please revert the article to the original and perfectly good "prophesized" or give a reference for your claim that 'usage experts consistently prefer "prophesy" and its conjugations to "prophesize"'. Bazza (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Prophesize" is commonly used as a synonym for "prophesy", although some consider prophesize, to be in error. See e.g. The American Heritage Dictionary; Webster's New World College Dictionary. Paul August &#9742; 17:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Is this, then, a WP:ENGVAR thing? In British English there may not have been the confusion stated in your first reference between prophecy and prophesy: we have, for example, -ice (for nouns) and -ise (for verbs), as in licence and license. Bazza (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and please accept my apologies for describing the reversion as having been done “idly”. I didn’t initially see the invitation to supply a reference that you referred to, so it seemed as if the reversion had been made without due diligence. (In case it helps explain the lapse, at the time I was somewhat distracted at the gym and was viewing the notification on a mobile device.)

As indicated by the link you included, “prophesize” is indeed a word, but you will find that a Google search for “prophesy prophesize usage” turns up a large number of references indicating that “prophesy” is generally preferred. Here, for example, is a statement from the website of Paul Brians, a professor of literature at Washington State University: "'prophecy / prophesy “Prophecy,” the noun, (pronounced “PROF-a-see”) is a prediction. The verb “to prophesy” (pronounced “PROF-a-sigh”) means to predict something. When a prophet prophesies he or she utters prophecies.

Outside of Bob Dylan’s lyrics, writers and critics do not “prophesize.” They prophesy.'" The same search turns up pages like https://www.grammarbook.com/homonyms/prophecy-prophesize-prophesy.asp and https://howcanisaythat.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/prophecy-prophesy-prophesize-prophecize/ that generally make the same point.

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, and thank you for your diligence and assistance in this matter.


 * I am sure some people think that "prophesy" (as a verb) is preferable to "prophesize". Others will think the other way round, and this may be a English variation issue. I've been bold and used a common synonym instead (foretold) which I hope will satisfy all. Bazza (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)