Talk:Swedish-Canadian
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in topic Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, Danish-Canadian, among others
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, Danish-Canadian, among others
edit
None of these "Nation-Nation" words are useful and don't convey any additional meaning when compounded together, and some possible combinations seem implausible and unattestable (e.g. Nauruan-Luxembourgian, etc.) Full list available at Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. Delete as sum of parts. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not against deletion of those mentioned in the header, but shouldn't we at least name beforehand those that will be deleted? I would think there are words formed according to this pattern that we want to keep, such as African-American, Anglo-Norman or Anglo-American, and probably also Hiberno English, just to name a few quick examples? --Hekaheka 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm voting specifically against those created by Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. I do agree there are certain very famous compound examples that need to be kept, but surely not these. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am surprised that anyone would object to adding adjectives such as: "German-Canadian/German Canadian", "English-Canadian/English Canadian", "Italian-Canadian/Italian Canadian", "Indian-Canadian, Indian Canadian, Indo-Canadian" to the English-language Wiktionary. There is often a difference in spelling or form between the adjective and the noun when translated into other languages. Also in English we may say or write English-Canadian or French-Canadian when we actually mean "English-speaking Canadian", "anglophone Canadian", or "English-language Canadian" "this or that". (cf. de: deutschkanadisch/deutsch-kanadisch, Deutschkanadier, Deutschkanadierin; englischkanadisch, englisch-kanadisch, anglokanadisch, anglo-kanadisch, anglophon kanadisch; fr: canadien-allemand, germano-canadien, Canadien allemand, canadien anglophone, etc.) We need to add more words such as these (and their multilingual translations), instead of deleting them. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The pages mentioned in the title of this section seem useful to me, and I don't see how they could be considered as harmful to the project. Of course, such compounds should be included only when attested. Lmaltier 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- With all respect, how are they useful? And is it practical to try and attest them on an individual basis? To me it seems a standard sum of parts, i.e. several words that say just what they seem to say when combined. It appears similar to phrases like "quasi-[any adjective]", "semi-[any adjective]", etc. The biggest value I can see from these are for translation purposes, but I'm not fully convinced it's worth keeping them for that reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are useful for definitions given. These definitions are not obvious at all. But we must check these pages, and improve them: the WP page is spelt w:Finnish Canadian: are both spellings used ? for both senses? I don't know. These questions show that useful linguistic data can be provided.
- Of course, paper dictionaries don't include these words, and they are right: they lack space, and they use space available to them for more useful definitions. But this does not mean that these definitions are not useful. Lmaltier 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the compounded forms are clear as-is. This is perhaps a bit of a strawman, but: would Nauruan-Belgian or Monegasque-Tasmanian strike you as being useful at all, even if attestable for some bizarre reason? There are literally thousands of possible combinations to be formed. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Assume that somebody reads it on a website, and wants to know what it means (it's clear that the sense is not obvious: he might imagine at least two possible senses). He might select the word and use WikiLook to get a definition. But only if the page exists! I feel that you think that there are more useful entries still missing, and you are right. But why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? Lmaltier 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The pages just seem unnecessary. Anyone with a decent grasp of English would probably think to search for Monegasque and Belgian separately. I've seen not infrequently the combination of two adjectives via a dash. E.g.: "the architecture was quasi-baroque" ... "I'm sorta-okay today", etc. The terms do not change their meaning when combined into a pseudo-compound word via a dash. They are still separate words. And if they're separate words, they should not be listed under the same combined entry in Wiktionary. That's called "Sum of Parts". That's my reasoning, anyway; feel free to disagree or attack my not infallible logic. I'm a minimalist, so that might influence my opinion. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're influenced by the fact that English is your native language. In addition to senses already given, you could imagine two other senses: person with a Finnish father (or mother) and a Canadian mother (or father). Or person with both nationalities. Yes, I can tell you that these pages are useful to people reading these words. And you don't answer me: why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? If you don't think so, then why do you propose to delete them? Lmaltier 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I actually am natively bilingual, although my userpage wouldn't indicate it (not enough practice in the "passive" language lately to be comfortable labelling myself with the native template. I may eventually switch it back). Why I think the site would be better without the pages? Not because it's necessarily "harming" the project (they aren't), but because I don't think they fit the project mission and are redundant. In all the languages I know, these compound words can be easily figured out by looking up each half individually (i.e., канадско-финский, or kanada-finlanda). I do see your argument and I think it's a good one, I'm just not sure whether I support it. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're influenced by the fact that English is your native language. In addition to senses already given, you could imagine two other senses: person with a Finnish father (or mother) and a Canadian mother (or father). Or person with both nationalities. Yes, I can tell you that these pages are useful to people reading these words. And you don't answer me: why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? If you don't think so, then why do you propose to delete them? Lmaltier 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The pages just seem unnecessary. Anyone with a decent grasp of English would probably think to search for Monegasque and Belgian separately. I've seen not infrequently the combination of two adjectives via a dash. E.g.: "the architecture was quasi-baroque" ... "I'm sorta-okay today", etc. The terms do not change their meaning when combined into a pseudo-compound word via a dash. They are still separate words. And if they're separate words, they should not be listed under the same combined entry in Wiktionary. That's called "Sum of Parts". That's my reasoning, anyway; feel free to disagree or attack my not infallible logic. I'm a minimalist, so that might influence my opinion. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Assume that somebody reads it on a website, and wants to know what it means (it's clear that the sense is not obvious: he might imagine at least two possible senses). He might select the word and use WikiLook to get a definition. But only if the page exists! I feel that you think that there are more useful entries still missing, and you are right. But why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? Lmaltier 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the compounded forms are clear as-is. This is perhaps a bit of a strawman, but: would Nauruan-Belgian or Monegasque-Tasmanian strike you as being useful at all, even if attestable for some bizarre reason? There are literally thousands of possible combinations to be formed. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- With all respect, how are they useful? And is it practical to try and attest them on an individual basis? To me it seems a standard sum of parts, i.e. several words that say just what they seem to say when combined. It appears similar to phrases like "quasi-[any adjective]", "semi-[any adjective]", etc. The biggest value I can see from these are for translation purposes, but I'm not fully convinced it's worth keeping them for that reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm voting specifically against those created by Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. I do agree there are certain very famous compound examples that need to be kept, but surely not these. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)