Talk:Valediction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 "Split up by language?"
2 Regards
3 Rare and pop valedictions
4 "Yours, etc."
5 Yours truly,
6 Complimentary closing - not Valediction
7 Citation needed
8 Funny looking text
9 Is this article reliable??
10 Suggested Merge with Valedictorian

[edit] "Split up by language?"

Should this be split up by language? The french text is cool, but not very useful to me as a non-French speaker. :) I'm new at this so please excuse me if I'm saying something out of turn. --JByrd 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. No, your comment is exactly the kind of value-adding suggestion that makes this the greatest encyclopedia on earth.

I think the French text is extremely useful within this same article. I am an anglophone learning French as a second language, and for months I've been looking for this kind of information anywhere on the Web—I never even thought of looking on Wikipedia, talk less of the English Wikipedia. The value of having various languages together (as opposed to splitting them off to various languages, as you suggested) is that, as an English speaker, it is easier for me to compare what equivalent valedictions other languages use (I hope, in time, people add Spanish, German, and whatever other languages) for direct comparison. This would be much more difficult if the different languages were on different pages. Of course, the English section must be prominent at the top, as it is now. In fact, I hope to perhaps translate this article into the French Wikipedia—complete with the section on English valedictions—if I have some time.

So, if you don't mind, I'll remove your "split" and "expert" tags. However, if I have not adequately addressed your concerns, please feel free to add them back. ~ Chitu 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Would a German section be useful as well? Maybe an "Other languages" section? --W0lfie 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why the English version of this encyclopedia is dedicated to both French and English parts. This might be great for people trying to learn French, but that isn't exactly the intented audience. And it's extremely pretentious to say that his comment wasn't value-adding. 68.55.180.24 23:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chitu said his comment was value-adding. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regards

In my experience, by far the most common valediction in english language business letters and e-mails is "Regards" (not "Kind regards" or "Rgds"), followed by "Best Regards". --195.33.105.17 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I use "Kind regards," but I think you're right that it is less common. I have never seen "Rgds" in an email. Much more common is "Thanks" or the many variations on that. However, this would all count as original research, and should probably not be included in the article, unless somebody has a source to site. :-) W0lfie 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rare and pop valedictions

What about popular valedictions written in casual emails? Phrases like "Keep it real", "Over and out", "Peace", "Keep it surreal", "May the Force be with you", etc...?

Methinks I will add a bit. Please feel free to remove it if you deem it inappropriate to an article on valedictions.

Has anyone actually ever received an email with valediction "over and out" or "may the force be with you" etc, or is this just one Star Wars/Top Gun geek who has a tainted perspective on the world? Or are these common in the States but not Britain or something? I think it's a good idea to have an email section, but how about some that actually get used; "Regards", "Cheers", "Ta", or commonly nothing at all. Or is it my perspective that's warped?

I end my email with "Valediction, J"

[edit] "Yours, etc."

I have often seen (see for example, Project Gutenberg etexts of the memoirs of A. Lincoln, N. Buonaparte, T. Roosevelt, the novels of Jane Austen) the valediction "Yours, etc." Anyone have an idea what that "etc." stands for? It seems to 19th Century writers that the answer to that question is so exceedingly obvious as to never require writing out the valediction in full.

Perhaps it merely stands for whatever single word you feel like inserting: "Sincerely", or "truly", or "faithfully", ... but that begs the question, why would they feel it necessary to replace "sincerely" with "etc.", thus saving an enormous 8 characters worth of page space/ink.

I believe instead that there was a long-winded standardized valedictory phrase. But precisely what that phrase is I have not been able to discover. Perhaps the answer to that can be added to this fine article. Firstrock 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's Merriam Webster's: "etc" abbreviation "et cetera".

Oh, one more thing, "Yours, etc." is a formal usage of lawyers - at least in the New York.

Yours, etc. Ludvikus 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a lawyer in New York, and I have never seen it used in court papers. Indeed, I have never seen it used in the US at all; my only encounter with this form has been in Britain.

[edit] Yours truly,

How do I access the REDIRECT page for the above? I worked on it in September, so I want to see what happened in the discussion which resulted in a REDIRECT.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to this page: [Talk:Yours truly,] 81.107.209.253 12:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the origin of "Yours truly"? I can't find anything. Is it simply a reference to the speaker or does it mean something like "I'm here for you", etc?? It would see that at one point it must have had more meaning than simply a generic sign off in a letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.1.108 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complimentary closing - not Valediction

I think the editors of confused the two concepts. And this article should be moved or merged.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Complimentary closings are a form of valediction. Possibly could merge complimantary closings into valediction, but i think maybe it would be better to just put a link betweeen them? 81.107.209.253 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

"and many more, including "Love", etc.[citation needed]" lol. Why does this need citation? Dannpm 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Same for "for additional brevity it is occasionally abbreviated to simply "Rgds".[citation needed]" -- if an editor lives in a certain country and knows this happens every day, does the statement really need a citation..? Erik 08:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny looking text

"SOB" under "Old Formal Valedictions" looks very much like vandalism. It should be removed if it is vandalism, otherwise perhaps a citation should be added so that it looks genuine. --Whiteknox 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is confirmed to be vandalism as it was previously "YOB" (Your Obedient Servant). An unknown IP changed it from "Y" to "S" without any explanations. I'm changing it back. Thanks for pointing it out Whiteknox. Soulrefrain 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article reliable??

I cannot find ANY sources for a single paragraph of text within this article. It has been tagged since NOVEMBER 2006. What to do?? Burntsauce 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Merge with Valedictorian

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus to merge. -- IrishGuy ^talk 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the articles Valediction and Valedictorian be merged on the grounds that the Valedictorian article is so short and could easily be inserted as a subsection in the Valediction article. The words valediction and valedictorian share a common derivation. A valedictorian is, in essence, one who delivers a valediction, therefore to have two separate articles for them seems to be unnecessary.Neelix 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Opposition - I would strongly oppose a proposed merger of the two articles, valedictorian and valediction. There is no argument that these two terms share a common derivation. However, the two terms have very, very different meanings and -- through both time and usage -- the first word has essentially nothing to do with the second word. Yes, in the "old days", a valedictorian was the student who delivered a valediction to the class (typically at graduation). Nowadays, however, the word "valedictorian" means anything and everything that a school defines it to mean (e.g., usually the top ranked academic student) ... whether or not such student actually delivers a valediction to the class at graduation. There has, in fact, been some discussion and debate about this at the Talk Page for Valedictorian. I think that, over time and through usage, the two words have a divergent enough meaning that they merit separate articles. The common linguistic derivation, while interesting, is too tenuous to support a merger. Nowadays, the term "valedictorian" means anything and everything but "the student who delivers the valedictory address." Its historical meaning has become lost and replaced with the common usage of "highest ranked student." While historically linked, the two terms have little -- if any -- connection today. If indeed a school utilizes its highest ranked student (the valedictorian) to deliver a valediction, that is only by coincidence or by policy -- accentuating the fact that the two terms have diverged in meaning and currently bear little relationship to each other. A merger here would be tantamount to, say, merging the articles on "astronaut" and "astronomy" simply because they share a common derivation ("astron" = star). Yes, the article on valedictorian is short (but accurate) ... so be it. Other than tenuous historical rooting, it really has nothing to do with valediction at all. Strong opposition to this proposed merger. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Strongly oppose. I could say why, or I could say "Joseph above just said it perfectly." No reason to reinvent the wheel with my reasoning -- Joseph is clearly correct. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as well, with the same reasoning. Etymology isn't enough to lump two divergent meanings into one article. Ig8887 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - They're really not related. --ubiquity (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.