Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and trimming the Idiomaticity section

< Wiktionary:Votes

CFI and trimming the Idiomaticity section edit

  • Voting on: Trimming the WT:CFI#Idiomaticity section by removing the following paragraphs.
  • Action 1: Drop the following:

Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts. The reason is that the parts often have several possible senses, but the compound is often restricted to only some combinations of them.

  • Action 2: Drop the following:

For example, mega- can denote either a million (or 220) of something or simply a very large or prominent instance of something. Similarly star might mean a celestial object or a celebrity. But megastar means "a very prominent celebrity", not "a million celebrities" or "a million celestial objects", and only rarely "a very large celestial object" (capitalized, it is also a brand name in amateur astronomy).

  • Action 3: Drop the following:

This rule must be applied carefully and is somewhat subjective. For example, bank has several senses and parking lot has an idiomatic sense of "large traffic jam". However bank parking lot can’t possibly mean "to put a large traffic jam in a financial institution". With such clearly wrong interpretations weeded out, the remaining choices are "place to park cars for any of several kinds of business"” or "place to park cars by, for or on a river bank or similar" (as opposed to, say, the hill parking lot). The whole phrase could plausibly mean either, depending on context (though the first is likely far more common), and so the phrase is not idiomatic.

Support action 1 (drop) edit

  1.   Support This is only relevant to English, not to other languages. As such it has no place in CFI which is for general rules which apply to all languages. -- Liliana • 13:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support —RuakhTALK 07:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose action 1 edit

  1.   Oppose.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support action 2 (drop) edit

  1.   Support f'up to above -- Liliana • 13:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —RuakhTALK 07:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose action 2 edit

Support action 3 (drop) edit

  1.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support This section doesn't even make sense. By what tortured interpretation would "bank parking lot" mean "to put a large traffic jam in a financial institution"? (That's a rhetorical question.) - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're getting at with your rhetorical question. The section clearly labels that as a "clearly wrong interpretation" to be "weeded out" even before applying the rule in question; and you seem to be agreeing with that labeling? —RuakhTALK 07:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that by saying "clearly wrong" the policy was trying to say "which aren't sensible / logical in any of the contexts in which you will encounter the words" (call this 'interpretation A'), not "which can't exist because these words don't even have senses that would allow a compound of them to this meaning unless the compound was idiomatic" ('interpretation B'). The words actually do seem to lack senses that would allow a combination of them to mean "to put a large traffic jam in a financial institution", though, so the example seems nonsensical if the section was intended to convey interpretation A. Whereas, if the section was trying to convey interpretation 'B', the example shouldn't be given at all because it's confusing and meaningless (in the philosophical sense): it's like saying "some people from Idaho can become President of the United States, but not all people from Idaho can: Julius Caesar clearly cannot become President of the United States" (it's strictly correct that he can't ... but it's not because of anything to do with Idaho, so it's a confusing and meaningless example). - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "The words actually do seem to lack senses that would allow a combination of them to mean 'to put a large traffic jam in a financial institution'": one sense of bank is roughly "to put in the bank [=a financial institution]" (see google books:"banked $300"), and one figurative sense of parking lot is "a large traffic jam" (see google books:"parking lot during rush hour", though about half of those are literal). Our entries do actually have these senses, though they don't use these exact words to define them . . . —RuakhTALK 22:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support —RuakhTALK 07:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose action 3 edit

  1.   Oppose This is so often referred to in deletion discussions that it can't just be removed with no replacement. -- Liliana • 13:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to me a couple of deleting discussions that refer to this? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Try searching for "bank parking lot". Some of the first results are Talk:hash brownie, Talk:pack heat, Talk:television show. -- Liliana • 13:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see: google:"bank parking lot" site:en.wiktionary.org. In Talk: namespace, it finds Talk:hash brownie, Talk:pack heat, Talk:long and hard, Talk:all square, and that's all; for some reason, it does not find Talk:television show. When searching using wiki search for "bank parking lot" in talk: namespace, I further find Talk:slim chance, Talk:women's suffrage, Talk:I have a dream, Talk:wave, and that's it. Thus, it is fairly rarely referred to, and we'll do just fine without it, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose per the vote-creator's rationale on the talkpage and per my votes above. But if either of the first two actions passes, I support action 3 per the vote-creator's rationale on the talkpage.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That vote, though dated after the vote's close, actually was placed beforehand: see the page history.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Decision edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI_and_trimming_the_Idiomaticity_section&oldid=36808017"