View source for Talk:Lapis lazuli

As it is now, the first line effectively says that lapis lazuli is probably lapis lazuli! This needs further editing. --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 08:40, 2 August 2016 (CEST)

Thanks. I'm pretty sure now, I checked with my doctor. --[[User:Hankop|Hankop]] ([[User talk:Hankop|talk]]) 13:16, 2 August 2016 (CEST)
:I know you are referring to ''mu men'', and don't actually need to consult a doctor to know whether lapis lazuli is lapis lazuli. But there is still an issue with this page: it reads more like a definition of the Tibetan term — which it could be, if we include it in the dictionary section. If it is going to stay as an 'English' entry, we need to include other terms such as ''vaiḍūrya'', even if it is only to dismiss them. But this is a fairly complex issue – even if it is known that the English word 'beryl' actually derives from the same original term as Skt ''vaiḍūrya'' (via Greek and Latin) – but we perhaps need to acknowledge that we translate ''baiḍūrya'' as lapis lazuli all over the place... --[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 17:37, 2 August 2016 (CEST)