Talk:constructed language

Deletion debate

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.

---

constructed language

Rfd-sense: Any language used by people, as opposed to less civilized means of communication, such as the socialization between animals.

There are quotations given in the entry that are intended to attest the definition, but I do not quite understand what they say, and that they really attest the definition. An alternative venue would be RFV, but the quotations are already there, so I have sent this to RFD. --Dan Polansky 15:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one

1. If the citations are correct, could it be SoP?
2. If the citations aren't correct, it needs more citations

I favour in particular the RFV route. I don't think the first citation supports this meaning at all. For the second one, I don't think so either, but I'm less sure. The third one to me does support this meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Striking out of process, moving to RFV. RFV makes a lot of sense, as I am questioning attestation. --Dan Polansky 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first one probably doesn't match the definition; the second probably needs a philosopher's opinion, and the third does. Certainly archaic and rare.--Prosfilaes 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you replicate your comment in WT:RFV#constructed language. Sorry for the confusion that I have created. --Dan Polansky 06:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Struck by nominator. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RFV

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Rfv-sense: Any language used by people, as opposed to less civilized means of communication, such as the socialization between animals.

There are quotations given in the entry that are intended to attest the definition, but I do not quite understand what they say, and that they really attest the definition. --Dan Polansky 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The quotations appear valid to me. Still, I find it quite unlikely that this would be a valid sense in today's linguistics. Why on Earth use the term "constructed language" as a hypernym of itself (sense #1)? Note that all three quotations are from 19th century. Unless newer quotations are provided, this could be tagged "archaic". --Hekaheka 22:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Passed, tagged archaic. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)