Talk:Chronotope

Source says Bakhtin did not coin the word
The article says "The term was coined by Russian literary scholar M.M. Bakhtin" and cites Dentith, S. "Chronotope". The Literary Encyclopedia as a source for this fact. Although I did not create an account to view the whole article, the part that is visible above the paywall says the following: "A term taken over by Mikhail Bakhtin from 1920s science to describe the manner in which literature represents time and space." This implies he did not "coin" the word, but was the first to apply it to literary studies. The article should be fixed to reflect this.

kerim (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it would be good to find where it was used in 1920s science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This source says that Bakhtin did coin the word, based on Einsteins concept of "space-time". This would suggest that Dentith is only partly right and that the word "chronotope" was a greekism based on "space-time", but first coined by Bakhtin.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion surrounding citations
These citations were wholesale deleted because User:Harold the Sheep thinks "this isn't an improvement". NurishmentForThinking (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The chronotope is the conduit through which meaning enters the logosphere.
 * It's not the citations that I'm worried about. It's the rewriting of the entire lead in a way that does not provide a clear summary of what the article is about. The previous version is considerably better in this respect. Please discuss individual changes before making them. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see you are seeking to improve the article. However, some of your paraphrases and summaries of the sources are somewhat obscure and idiomatic (eg. "Paraphrasing Bakhtin, time flows, based on how into the text you are getting"), so I might do a bit of rewriting at some stage. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the citations that I'm worried about. It's the rewriting of the entire lead in a way that does not provide a clear summary of what the article is about. The previous version is considerably better in this respect. Please discuss individual changes before making them. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see you are seeking to improve the article. However, some of your paraphrases and summaries of the sources are somewhat obscure and idiomatic (eg. "Paraphrasing Bakhtin, time flows, based on how into the text you are getting"), so I might do a bit of rewriting at some stage. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the citations that I'm worried about. It's the rewriting of the entire lead in a way that does not provide a clear summary of what the article is about. The previous version is considerably better in this respect. Please discuss individual changes before making them. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see you are seeking to improve the article. However, some of your paraphrases and summaries of the sources are somewhat obscure and idiomatic (eg. "Paraphrasing Bakhtin, time flows, based on how into the text you are getting"), so I might do a bit of rewriting at some stage. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, that sounds good. I guess my reactionary statement could be boiled down to don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. NurishmentForThinking (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)