As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Expression talk:sleep

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The verb definition[edit]

Out of sync[edit]

The English definition, for example, being at the moment

To periodically rest in a state of decreased consciousness and reduced metabolism.

the following translated definitons are out of sync:

  • outofsync|fin Vaipua alentuneen tietoisuuden ja hidastuneen aineenvaihdunnan tilaan.
  • outofsync|ita Riposare in uno stato di sospensione della coscienza e di riduzione del metabolismo.

as they don't mention the periodicity.

"periodically" is not part of the meaning, see below. The definitions that mention the periodicity are out of sync now. See also DefinedMeaning talk:sleep (6519). --Ortografix 13:36, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Periodicity[edit]

Icon tools.png
This article (sleep) needs attention because:
Periodicity shouldn't possibly be part of the definition of sleeping.
It has been added to this category for attention. Thank you for your patience.


In my opinion the periodicity should not be included in the definition. It's too restrictive for most, if not all, expressions currently associated.

If I'd say "I just slept couple of hours" (or "Ho appena dormito due ore") it wouldn't mean that I've fallen asleep and got awaken in a cycle of 15 minutes, for example, during the two hours or so.

Referring to the out of sync note above, I'd remove the notion of periodicity from the definitions that have it rather than add it to the ones without it. --Mikalaari 12:03, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

I agree. In fact when I translated the definition to italian I omitted the periodicity because it would sound a nonsense. --Berto 12:09, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

Periodicity does not seem to me to be part of the concept either. I support it being removed from the Definition.--Sannab 12:19, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
I agree. Mikalaari's example sentence is very good. --Ortografix 17:38, 14 November 2007 (EST)