Talk:Chaise longue

Asking support for these types of explanatory notes
>The (French) name is often mistermed "chaise lounge", particularly in the American furniture industry.

That was a great note, and really helped me.

You ought to know that there are a couple of users over on another page (Shotokan) who seem to be opposed to adding these kinds of explanatory notes, saying that people should do their research and that it would be like adding notes to English encyclopedias to help prevent confusion by speakers of other languages (? - I know, his point didn't make a lot of sense to me either; see my dissection of it on the Talk:Shotokan page, section 6. "Translation clarifications"). I wonder if I could get some support from the people here for these kinds of explanatory notes? The note that I propose is on my talk page. Thanks. Cap j 11:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Better wording for explanatory notes
This wording: "It is sometimes erroneously written as "chaise lounge", which has persisted so strongly in America that it is no longer considered incorrect there," is wrong as a matter of usage as well as arrogant and condescending. A standard usage is not erroneous, and regardless of how the term evolved, "chaise lounge" is standard usage. It would be more correct to title this article as "chaise lounge" and to note that the word evolved from the French "chaise longue". Ideally this note would be worded without derisive comments about the process of word evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.12.27 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"For all intensive purposes" "Without a by or leave" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you meant to write "for all intents and purposes..." such is the dilemma of the English language in America... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.36.117 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If I was an American I would want to know and use the correct spelling. I would prefer that to the spelling used by millions of others like myself who happen to be ignorant of the correct one. In this case it is obvious the American spelling is wrong as the word is not correctly said as "lounge" but as "longue."

One plus One does not become three just because Einstein and a few hundred million Americans and a few million Canadians say it is so why should such silly errors be perpetuated and ignored just because to highlight it for them might offend those who have made the error out of ignorance? Ignorance is not a crime and people therefore have no right to be offended by their ignorance being pointed out to them. The user of 23rd January 2011 is defending the right of people around the world to remain ignorant under the cover of not wishing others to be "arrogant, condescending or derisive" towards those millions while themselves feeling quite free to be guilty of being arrogant, condescending and derisive to an individual in their argument of course. If we are never to be told we are wrong when we are so obviously wrong how are we to realise right from wrong when we may be right or wrong?

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.152.227 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those interminable arguments that just goes round in circles. If you enter either spelling of the name in the search box you will, surprise, arrive at the same article, which by the way uses the French spelling. Spyglasses 08:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think calling it a "folk-anagrammatic adaptation" is far too kind. It's simply a failure to understand the origin. rowley (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)