Talk:Soliloquy

message: see Talk:Monologue--Smerus 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merger

message: Are you sure the For the theological work, see Soliloquies of Augustine is necessary? You already have a link in the See Also section, and it would be unlikely that people would confuse Soliloquies of Augustine for Soliloquy - BlueRoll18 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''For the theological work, see [[Soliloquies of Augustine]]'' 

message: @Sandstein: why did you change "A soliloquy is a collection of thoughts..." to "A soliloquy are thoughts..."?  A solilquy is a singular noun, the plural is "soliloquies".
Your edit states "not per the source". What source are you referring to?
- "Soliloquy in Japanese and English" uses "a soliloquy" as a singular noun (in chapter 5) - as is correct and expected.
- "The Cambridge companion to English Renaissance drama" uses "a soliloquy" as a singular noun (page 23) - as is correct and expected.
One cannot say "A soliloquy are ..." in English. 
 
One can say "A soliloquy is a collection of thoughts that are..." - but here the thoughts are the plural, the soliloquy is still singular.
One can also say in a more general statement "Soliloquies are collections of thoughts..."
...but one can't start the sentence with "A soliloquy..." and then switch to the plural and continue with "...are..."  
If English is not your first language then one would understand the error but please explain and clarify your edit so we can fix this.
Thank you.
99.4.120.135 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rearranged the lead sentence. "A collection of thoughts" is inelegant; one does not collect thoughts.  Sandstein  10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better... but others who have published on "a collection of thoughts" clearly show that it is a well known idiom. Wikipedia is not really the place for you to practice learning English. Google: a collection of thoughts 99.4.120.135 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliloquy is a singular noun in English 

message: I inserted a drama related illustration and it was reverted. I also attempted to give a broader context of Soliloquy beyond the narrow focus of drama and that too was reverted as Not dict. The reverter has not returned to discuss so I will propose the illustration here. The caption could be changed, or another illustration more appropriate proposed... or no illustration. 
*Support illustration as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a picture for the sake of a picture. What the statue says is difficult to read unless one clicks on the image. A better picture would be of an actor performing an actual soliloquy.  Sandstein  14:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the feedback. I see your point here. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: @Lightburst: What exactly is the connection between the topic of this article and Lemma (morphology), which you have linked to in the "See also" section?  Sandstein  14:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have erased the See also. I see this term as narrowly defined - as it is now it is exactly a drama definition. It is duplicative to create another article with other uses. I see the same content dispute on the other article Wagon Fort. As it is Circle the wagons redirects there, but is not defined as the idiom that it is. The historical uses, it is again duplicative to create another article on the topic. There seems to be room in this article to add further uses. So etymology and historic uses of the two seem appropriate. I recently pointed you to Feeding Frenzy to see an example. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lemma (morphology)]]