Talk:protologism

While "protologism" seems to get applied in the second sense, this is at least arguably broader than the original definition, and probably broader than the main usage on the various protologisms pages and templates. I'm wondering if it should stay.

It also occurs to me that if we have enough data to argue about usage, we probably have a real word on our hands, indicating that the second sense is too broad. -dmh 20:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm.... yes. Merged the two. I've also moved the quote-unquote usage note since this is apparently not relevent to the usage of the term. DAVilla 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is protologism a protologism? --80.175.250.218 14:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Shoof 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! This is a most interesting topic. Could you please provide a list of protologisms. I am especially interseted in those that did not become real words.

See Category:Protologisms. Mutante 09:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A succesful protologism becomes a neologism. Right? Mutante 10:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Which begs the question: What is a word before it is a protologism? But seriously, new as in "a new word or phrase" in the definition of neologism already denotes a previous state of non-existence. Proto and neo are synonymous prefixes, and it makes little sense to create a synonym for a word that already exists. JustaAverageJoe 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there must be a distinction here. It's either an attempt to create a neologism (in which case it's a misnomer) or an attempt to name something currently unnamed (which would fit the word roots better), like when the metal fastener was first dubbed 'zipper.'

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

An anon. recently restored this page to a full entry. I was about to revert him, but I’m not sure whether I should. Protologism kinda looks like it could satisfy the CFI, unless there are some independence issues in re Wiktionary that I’m not considering. What do others think? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google protologism|protologisms (Books • Groups • Scholar): No b.g.c. or news-archive hits. Two Scholar hits, but it's not clear to me whether either was in a refereed academic journal, or even durably archived somewhere. Several Google Groups hits, but all are problematic — either mentions, or non-Usenet, or directly quoting from Wiktionary or Wikipedia, or using it in a list, or by our very own Language Lover (talk • contribs). (I guess the one by Language Lover isn't actually problematic, but there's something weird about quoting our own contributors' Usenet posts. I'd really rather not do it without good reason.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep it, with the existing warning. An occasional visitor in Wiktionary's discussion pages might want to check what is meant with it. --Hekaheka 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass the letter and spirit of CFI, then it doesn't belong in the dictionary. If we invent our own words, and then break our own rules to publish them, then we shouldn't be in this business. Move it to Wiktionary:protologism if you really want to keep it. —Michael Z. 2009-04-03 02:10 z

Found what I believe is a durable quote from the April 2007 issue of Prospect. (At least it is in the online version of that British magazine.) I'd say that one likely isn't problematic. No mention whatsoever about Wiki-anything in the article. — Carolina wren discussió 04:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, converted back to {{only in|{{in glossary}}}}. —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a word?

This word is defined by means of a "bootstrap" mechanism. If the definition is valid, then it needs be deleted. Victorsteelballs (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what a bootstrap mechanism is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's something like the definition of the word "word", which I'm guessing the original poster would also want to see deleted. Yes, this is really a word, but it's a neologism given that it isn't widely used or accepted, and probably wouldn't be understood. DAVilla 05:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)