Kept edit

Deleted edit

June edit

Laa-Laa edit

Laa-Laa is a Teletubby, nuff said surely? Tinky Winky, Po and Dipsy could be deleted to? --Keene 19:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (But keep polonium and the Italian river.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except Po. Tim Q. Wells 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but keep the non-Teletubby senses for Po. I almost think Tinky Winky might be worth keeping as well. He/She/It became a focal point in the US media a few years ago, with conservative politicians ludicrously claiming that the charatcer was gay and insiting the show be removed from broadcast. (Apparently the politicians' definition of "gay" was "speaks with deeper voice, carries purse, purple, and has an antenna shaped like an inverted triangle." I always thought the term "gay" meant "sleeps with individuals of the same biological sex." Since Tinky Winky's genitalia are as hidden as that of most penguins, and was never seen to have sex on television, and generally has a vocabulary limited to "Uh oh!", and is actually an Asian woman in a plush costume,, I was always curious how the conservative politicians arrived at their conclusion. But I digress...) --EncycloPetey 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion about the article, I just happened to see today that the very same idea about Tinky-Winky's possible "gay-ness" now has made it across the pond. \Mike 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Widsith 08:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian-persian gulf edit

Tagged for deletion with the caveat of pulling possible definitions from this encyclopedic article. Doesn't look like it is worth the effort, to me. --Connel MacKenzie 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

give it a day or so and they might add to wikipedia. I have just re-added the delete tag which was removed.--Dmol 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wikipedia want it with the wrong title like that? Wikipedia experiments belong in the Wikipedia User's userpage space anyhow...was he banned there or something? --Connel MacKenzie 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Persian propoganda, like the American "Bomb Iran" song on Youtube.Pistachio 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted with extreme prejudice. SemperBlotto 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pre-test edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:pre-test. -- Visviva 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elite edit

English section removed, discussion archived to Talk:Elite. -- Visviva 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Eight edit

Only used in an American basketball competition, as with Final Four, March Madness, Sweet Sixteen. Does thsis warrant inclusion? --Keene 10:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete; I've heard of the other terms mentioned above, but not this one. --EncycloPetey 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heard it plenty on sports radio. bd2412 T 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Fudd edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Elmer Fudd. -- Visviva 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise edit

Kept, at least for now, discussion archived to Talk:Enterprise. -- Visviva 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-o- edit

No consensus to delete, discussion archived to Talk:-o-. -- Visviva 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crossward edit

It's really not a very common misspelling. Google shows 628 hits for crossward, and 27 million for crossword. Do we really need an entry for this? Pstinchcombe 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, deleted. --EncycloPetey 21:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the fact, I would point out that "-ward" is pronounced differently from "word" (at least in UK English) and so this suffix and word unlikely to be confused. — Paul G 09:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oblique leaf edit

Not idiomatic. As with many terms of the form adjective + "leaf", the adjective may be used predicatively as well as attributively.
Likely copyvio; definitions given are identical to those in the dictionary.com entry. — Paul G 09:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which sense of oblique means "having one half different from the other"? Besides, it seems a term of art -- can we have a botanist's opinion?

It's copied from the 1913, no right to vio. Cynewulf 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete; There is a botanical sense of "oblique" that does mean that the base of the leaf blade is assymetrical. That information should reside at oblique. --EncycloPetey 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are planning to add a narratological sense to oblique and delete oblique speech, an anatomical sense and delete oblique muscle, a military sense and delete oblique fire...? Kappa 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some adjectives that have special meanings when they modify nouns with certain kinds of referents, but for which <adjective> + <noun> is not an idiom. Oblique is such when its subject refers to a leaf; you can in principle say "oblique Maple leaf", "very oblique leaf", "that leaf is oblique", etc. (I don't know how often botanists actually use the first two of those phrases — generally obliqueness is a property of all or no leaves of a certain species of tree, and generally it's treated as a boolean property — but the third one is definitely in use, and I think you get the idea.) It doesn't really make sense to keep an entry for <adjective> + <noun> in such cases. (That said, we do have an entry for fried egg, which is often taken as a standard example of a valid phrase here, even though "fried organic egg", "heavily fried egg", and "he always has his eggs fried" are all valid phrases/clauses using fried in that sense, so maybe oblique leaf should be included for consistency's sake if not for reason's.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you look in any plant morphology text, or even a decent field guide, you will see tables and tables of leaf images labelled by description. Each image will be labelled with the individual trait it is intended to show: oblique, pinnate, palmate, lobed, sinuate, emarginate, acuminate, decurrent, involute, auriculate, etc. This is only a small fraction of the words used to describe the outline of the leaf. There are also terms to describe leaf developmental structure, hairiness, angle, arrangement, etc. If we follow your consistency argument, then we need to include all 200+ compound descriptions of leaves. Do we then do this for ovary descriptions? bark descriptions? habit descriptions? floral descriptions? No, we should not. These are all simply descriptive adjectives from a technical jargon. The biggest difference here is that an average person might get up in the morning and use the term fried egg. Only botanists and the mentally unstable get up thinking oblique leaf. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would people here think of expanding CFI to include this gray area of terms like oblique leaf, vintage car, real number, and active volcano when one of the definitions of the adjective is specific to a certain type of thing, i.e. the "Of a type of thing, ..." sort of defintions, and the two words together are a common collocation? DAVilla 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would be delighted to know, one way or the other, what the community feels we should do with these. It would be even nicer if an exact test could be worked up. (E.g. "If the number of web search hits for the collocation is within 1% of the web search hits for 'vintage car' or greater...") --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collocation depends on the relative frequency, that is, the frequency of the phrase in comparison to that of the individual terms. For instance, "active volcano" gets 713K Google hits. With 438M and 16.4M hits for "active" and "volcano" respectively, that's 9.9% of one billionth of the product. In contrast, "big rock" gets many more, a full 1.25M, but in contrast to 637M and 549M for "big" and "rock" that's only 0.4%. One of the problems with doing this sort of raw analysis, however, is that you can't be sure which meanings of the words are being counted.

The collocation stipulation is meant to exclude phrases like "green fruit", which also comes in at 0.4% of one billionth, although green has a specific meaning for fruit. Knowing that there's a specific sense of the adjective that applies to that class of object is actually much more helpful, though. Otherwise we'd wind up accepting phrases on technicalities, e.g. "icy water" and "young people", which figure at 2.7% and, get this, 16%. DAVilla 03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant "relative to vintage car", (a known rare borderline case that we feel is acceptable) rather than "relative to the component words" but the points you make are quite good, anyway. Do we have entries for big rock, green fruit, ice water, icy water or young people? (Did I misread that, or were you not suggesting that each of those probably should have an entry here?) Excuse me, while I drive my vintage car over to see what the young people are up to now - perhaps they are diving into icy waters by the big rock without waiting 20 minutes after eating green fruit. (Note that by comparing "frequency relative to 'vintage car', two of those get fewer, are "green fruit" and "icy water"; the other two get more.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and oblique leaf. :-)

For discussion's sake, should I redo those links, to show that the same approximate results come up from other search engines? --Connel MacKenzie 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I find myself in agreement with User:Kappa on this one. Frankly, I thought particular types of jargon were given a great amount of leeway (as long as they are tagged correctly.) Not only is having them clog up main entries (like oblique) messy, it also makes looking the term up, less direct. OTOH, if we aren't keeping collocations, then we have an enormous amount of deleting, to get started on. --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this term means nothing beyond standard senses of oblique. An "oblique leaf" (or more properly "oblique leaf base") is one in which the bottom edge of the leaf blade is set at an angle (i.e. oblique). This is one of the existing definitions of oblique. If you were to look this term up in a botanical dictionary, it would not appear under oblique leaf, it would appear under oblique. My botanical dictionaries see oblique as the jargon, not oblique leaf. Do an exact search on Google for oblique leaf and the top hits will be one of three items: (1) an on-line dictionary offer, (2) a reference to "oblique leaf base", or (3) a reference to "oblique leaf sheath". This does not argue in favor of keeping this term when the top uses returned incluse an additional component to the term.

In any case, the precise wording/spelling oblique leaf gives only 855 Google hits (964, but 119 of those are actually for oblique leaf base). Consider that fried egg (exact phrase) has 582,000 Google hits, while egg fried has 34,300 (125,000, but 91,700 of these hits are actually for egg-fried rice). By comparison, an exact phrase search for oblique leaves gives 157 returns while leaves oblique gives 89. The inversion of the two elements gives almost 60% the same number of positive returns (it was only 6% for fried egg), suggesting that this is not a set phrase. For acuminate leaves I get 1280 hits; for leaves acuminate I get 562.

I write all of this as a person who spent both undergraduate and graduate years working in field botany and managing specimens in hore than one herbarium. I've used botanical jargon extensively as well as the works in which they appear. I would think that the experience of a specialist would carry some weight in this discussion, but apparently not. --EncycloPetey 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MILIGRUNT edit

Any takers? The format is totally wrong at the moment, of course. — Paul G 10:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larousse Gastronomique edit

An encyclopedia of gastronomy? Keep this in Wikipedia. --Keene 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --EncycloPetey 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS Classic edit

A type of computer

deleted (actually software). --EncycloPetey 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dwarf edit

"a British science fiction comedy series". Keep this in Wikipedia. --Keene 11:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not like we have an entry for Monty Python's Flying Circus here. --Connel MacKenzie 06:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had I previewed before posting, I might have been too exasperated to reword it. While Monty Python is internationally recognized, it too does not belong here. It certainly seems to have set a bad precedent. --Connel MacKenzie 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the redirect, so now it appears red, as it probably should. DAVilla 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz edit

Kept, nose held, discussion archived to Talk:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. -- Visviva 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall riots edit

Moved to Stonewall, discussion archived to Talk:Stonewall. -- Visviva 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frosted Flakes edit

RFDed in March, I forgot to add it here. Frosted Flakes is the name of a cereal. Not for wikt, I don't think so. --Keene 12:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete --EncycloPetey 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is sometimes listed as an ingredient in recipes, to the point of being practically genericized, among many other appearances in literature. DAVilla 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't argue for a word to be kept on the basis of a generic sense that is not defined here, and for which you have given no citations. Certainly the "breakfast cereal produced by Kellogg Company" isn't the generic meaning, and there is no argument for keeping that even if one does exist. Dmcdevit·t 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Stephen 02:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same as Frosties? --Keene 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI "Frosties" is a specific brand of frosted flakes. Thryduulf 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of the language, practically genericized. Kappa 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but move to rfv as frosted flakes.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and let the rfv sort it out as Connel says above. ArielGlenn 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted without prejudice; contained no reference to the above-mentioned generic sense. -- Visviva 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twister edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Twister. -- Visviva 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:WP:AWB. -- Visviva 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia edit

Spam --Keene 12:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask Jimbo to comment here. --Connel MacKenzie 04:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Stephen 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How about we add a wiki-jargon list like the protolog list? The only wiki that really deserves an entry is wiki. If we recognize it for what it is, a brand name/trademark, we'd delete it with only a hesitation to see if the word is used independently beyond a brand term: Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#What_Wiktionary_is_not_with_respect_to_names. Does anyone have a citation for wikia meaning something beyond Wikia the site?--Halliburton Shill 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is really wikipedia material--Williamsayers79 10:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco edit

Kept as redirect, discussion archived to Talk:wilco. -- Visviva 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wile E. Coyote edit

Another cartoon character...I'm obviously not a big fan of cartoons. --Keene 12:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I thought we'd already discussed this one... --EncycloPetey 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Stephen 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Wonka edit

Surely my last fictional-character nomination for today --Keene 12:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Magazine edit

Monthly magazines in Wiktionary? No! --Keene 12:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 13:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman edit

Keep, discussion archived to Talk:Wonder Woman. -- Visviva 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X the Y out of edit

Tosh, surely. People would never look up "X the Y out of". --Keene 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Silly, and would never be looked up. BTW, not an adjective as stated either.--Dmol 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intended meanings are idiomatic, so move to beat the crap out of (or whichever variant can be shown to have the most usage) and redirect every reasonable variant to that entry, with a usage note on the potential for substitutions. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Stephen 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move and create redirects per BD2412. Thryduulf 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See scare the X out of, also. 134.10.124.87 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X the Y out of edit

As above, is incredibly confusing --Keene 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you nominated the same thing twice in a row? (I assume you meant to nominate something different? And apparently all my sentences now end with question marks?) —Ruakh_TALK 18:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thanks. I meant X like Y . Is listed below

X like Y edit

As above, is incredibly confusing --Keene 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; useless and non-idiomatic as is. bd2412 T 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Stephen 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The car drives like hell. This non-idiomatic? Certainly not. Keep. 4.235.108.239 12:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some people drink like fish, or throw like girls, or smell like... well, you get my point. It's all about a meaning of the word "like". bd2412 T 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaphod Beeblebrox edit

Fictional character --Keene 13:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an entry is the name of a fictional character is not reason to delete. --EncycloPetey 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character name, not used attributively. --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Widsith 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. bd2412 T 10:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis edit

Spam? --Keene 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say obviously yes, but for several things: it has survived AfD on the 'pedia 3 times, Uncle G in involved with it, and SemperBlotto created this entry, which is the sort of thing he would normally shoot on sight. So more than usual is going on here. Robert Ullmann 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's presumably here as a kind of complementary "sister" project. However it's not the kind of thing that would be found in the lexicon of the average person. Kappa 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete as per Wikitravel. --Keene 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep. —Stephen 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement with Yellowikis (which is that I have administrator privileges on the wiki and transwikify articles there) should have zero bearing on the decision as to whether this satisfies our criteria for inclusion. And the survival on Wikipedia of an encyclopaedia article is only of tangential relevance. Not all Wikipedia article titles are words, after all. Please evaluate this using our Criteria, as you would anything else. Uncle G 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It survived on Wikipedia because it is encyclopedic. For the same reason, I don't think it passes CFI. As a proper noun company (not really, but same category) with neither a generic usage or attributive sense, this should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts edit

Resolved, discussion archived to Talk:Scouts. -- Visviva 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Care Bears. -- Visviva 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

direct-to-DVD edit

Can't wait to hear how this isn't sum-of-parts, but rather, is idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, dude, it's got hyphens! (snigger) --EncycloPetey 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following would you consider to be grammatically correct?

Films which went direct-to-video when video was the only available home viewing format may now also be going direct to DVD as well as or instead of VHS release.
Films which went direct-to-video when video was the only available home viewing format may now also be going directly to DVD as well as or instead of VHS release.

This is a quotation from an edited work and from an author who knows how to use adverbs correctly. DAVilla 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny edit

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:Bugs Bunny. -- Visviva 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday-night edit

Moved from WT:RFV. DAVilla 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Of events typical of a Saturday night" - This is not in other dictionaries, and is unidiomatic. Surely accepting this would mean accepting Sunday-night, Monday-morning, Wednesday-evening, [[Saturday-afternoon[[ etc. --Keene 12:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unidiomatic. Delete. DAVilla 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine the definition is not what was intended, for this entry. "It was 9:00 AM Tuesday morning, but they were partying like it was Saturday night!" I can almost see that as idiomatic. Almost. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Widsith 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corn Flakes edit

Another brand name. (Note: this is not a nomination of corn flakes, which we also have an entry for.) Advertisers must love Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the capitalized form does not seem to be used generically, or commonly if so (oddly, Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on the brand, only the general type of cereal). Dmcdevit·t 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why would we have the brand name in addition to the generic term? ArielGlenn

Blackadder edit

Kept, sense removed, discussion archived to Talk:Blackadder.-- Visviva 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brindavan Express edit

" The name of the train operated by Indian Railways between the Garden City of India, Bangalore and Chennai. The name of the train is influenced by the Brindavan Gardens which is present in the historic city of Mysore." - Not Wikt material. --Keene 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Stephen 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, please give your reasoning when commenting in RFD. — Paul G 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this is Wikipedia material c.f. w:List of named passenger trains. Thryduulf 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if the train (itself) is considered a "National landmark or museum." Is it? It doesn't seem to be listed on that Wikipedia page. --Connel MacKenzie 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't listed on that Wikipedia page, but if it belongs on any Wikimedia project I think that is where it should be. Thryduulf 21:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat edit

(Note caps.) Delete as a name with no generic or attributive senses listed, as per Talk:Accord#RFD. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of the English language, and per the consensus to keep at Talk:Accord#RFD. Kappa 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sense was deleted, not kept. And for the same reason that this one fails CFI. Dmcdevit·t 08:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was deleted because of one person's interpretation of the CFI, despite lack of consensus. See also the discussion at Caterpillar below. Are you planning to nominate Ford next? Kappa 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept without prejudice. -- Visviva 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evo edit

Sense removed, discussion archived to Talk:Evo. -- Visviva 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hägar the Horrible edit

A character from a long-standing comic strip. I doubt this has entered the English lexicon. Btw, if you're getting annoyed with me RFDing loads of cartoon characters/webistes, please give me a nudge. --Keene 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep them coming (or going, depending on how you look at it!). — Beobach972 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Beobach972 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Google Book hits like "papers are written in a style so appalling that it makes Hagar the Horrible read like Jane Austen" I would say keep at Hagar the Horrible. DAVilla 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imipolex G edit

Fictional plastic? This is one RFD I'm not going to apologize for! --Keene 10:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Widsith 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flux capacitor edit

Another ficitonal bit of technology, apparently only used in the Back to the Future movies. This would make it a nonce term, right? And Wiktionary doesn't accept nonce terms. --Keene 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it does seem to be used attributively (e.g. car shows: "Where's the flux capacitor?") Interestingly, chip manufacturers seem to have a "lateral flux capacitor" (maybe even lateral-flux capacitor) which doesn't make much sense to me, from the b.g.c. citation contexts. I can't tell if they are using it to generate a square wave from a constant DC source, or if it is meant to make a square wave from a sinusoidal wave, or if it is just an "in-joke" in VLSI manufacturing referring to the "time travel" appearance of predicative instruction processing. I find it a little disturbing (for some reason) that this reference to a movie from decades ago seems to be a growing internet meme. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has yet another use: some technical detail too complicated to describe briefly. --Connel MacKenzie 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a nonce if, aside from a respectable author, nobody else uses it. Incidentally, CFI seems to allow nonces, but that loophole should probably be closed. DAVilla 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete We should have appendixes (appendices for the anal) for this kind of crap, better still, should it not live on somewhere like Wikipedia as part of a larger article?--Williamsayers79 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Am edit

An encyclopedic concept; no generic or attributive sense for this name. Dmcdevit·t 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I add this? Oops, yes I did. I am presently under the rather hazy impression that Pan-Am (or possibly Pan-Am.) is the abbreviation for Pan-American, as used to describe something which spans or involves all of the Americas. I'll check later, but don't make any sudden moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'm curious why we have it at Pan-American, and not pan-American. Is that conventional in English? It looks irregular to me, and OED has it (and all other pan-s, it looks like) listed as the lower-case form only. Dmcdevit·t 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there are numerous Google Books hits for the "Pan Am Games" which are unrelated to Pan-Am the airline. So apparently, at least Pan Am is an abbreviation for Pan-American (and the "Pan" is capitalized independently. ~~I'll look further for hyphenated uses.~~ Some of the hits right in the first few pages are hyphenated, so that is at least an alternate spelling. "Pan-Am Conference (or Pan-Am. Conference) also gets a handful of hits,[1] so use is not restricted to the Games. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caterpillar edit

(Note caps.) An encyclopedic concept; no generic or attributive sense for this name. Dmcdevit·t 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important vehicular company and the name of the company is used in reference to individual vehicles, just as Ford, Cadillac, or Chevy would be. I've seen sentences along th lines of "We rented a Caterpillar to dig a trench for the sewer line." It wasn't the company that was rented, but a vehicle manufactured by the company that was rented. --EncycloPetey 18:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a company that was rented, why would you want to keep the definition that turns that sentence into "We rented a [The trademark of Caterpillar Inc., which manufactures heavy equipment and construction vehicles] to dig a trench for the sewer line."? If you are going to argue for keeping an article on the basis of a potentially valid sense that isn't the one that is currently there, please actually add the sense that you think merits inclusion. Dmcdevit·t 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We rented the Caterpillar to dig a [long, narrow ditch or hole dug in the ground, especially in warfare] for the sewer line." Ha ha. 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But a Caterpillar is not a specific machine, it could be any of several types of bulldozer, drott, backhoe, dragline. My dad ran an earthmoving business when I was a kid, and I never heard any machine referred to by it maker, rather they were called by the type. (note; JCB is a specific UK exception) Delete, unless we decide on a policy that says company names are to be included as a matter of routine. --Dmol 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Ford is not a specific kind of vehicle either, but it does encompass a specific class of objects (cars, vans, and trucks), just as Harley or Yamaha usually means motorcycle. Not just any company name should be allowed in, no, but a company name that serves as a (metonym?) for the product, such as Kleenex, Q-tip, Xerox, or Ford should. I would not expect that you would have heard a machine referred to generically as a "Caterpillar"; ir your father was in the business, he would have been experienced enough to use more specific terminology than the general public. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my point is that NO-ONE, either in the business or in the general public, uses the name to refer to as a type of vehicle. Will we now add Case, Bombardier, Massey, Fergason {sp?), International. While with names like Ford there is some degree of car type implied, this does not exist with such a broad term as Caterpillar. Sorry, I can't see any valid correlation with the Ford usage.--Dmol 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that assertion is false, I vote for deletion based only on the fact that it is a trademark. (I do recall hearing "Caterpillar" to refer to both 'any generic backhoe' and 'any generic bulldozer,' conversationally, here in the US.) --Connel MacKenzie 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have heard this term used generically (and almost never specifically to mean vehicles manufactured by the specific company). ArielGlenn 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mogwai edit

A Scottish band, and not even a very big one at that --Keene 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought this was the creature from Gremlins (thought it was capitalized). Maybe an alt spell? bd2412 T 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great-great-great-grandfather edit

Past the traditional boundary between relatives and ancestors. --Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-idiomatic. bd2412 T 23:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

em- -en edit

Even though I believe that both en- -en and em- -en should stay, I RFD-tagged this entry for the sake of fairness, as en- -en is already tagged therewith (also, it would be absurd to keep em- -en if en- -en gets deleted). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think of these as circumflexes but as separate prefixes and suffixes, and I don't think I'm alone.. the word circumflex is just not used in English grammar to my knowledge. Widsith 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see hereinbefore for my arguments in favour of keeping this and en- -en. Even if they are kept, I think that it would be a good idea to mention in a usage note that whilst some (like me) recognise these as circumfixes, others (like you) see them as separate (if complementary) prefixes and suffixes. English definitely has at least two circumfixes — y- -t (as in yclept) and a- -ing (as in a-going), but these two are both archaïc (although the latter can be found rarely in the verbal phrases of a few dialects). By the way, I think you mean circumfix, not circumflex — a circumflex is this diacritic: «^». † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Is circumfix even a word, or have you just invented it? Widsith 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "circumfix" is certainly a word, and is certainly used in this way. The debate is whether particular circumfixes are linguistic entities in their own right rather than the sum of a prefix and a suffix.

dictionary.com's entries for "circumfix" give examples in the form "a- ... -ing" and "a- and -ing". Note the absence of a standardised form. They do not give "a- -ing", which means that "en- en" and "em- -en" should probably not be given in that form. That's beside the point of whether they should be kept at all, of course. Note also that the fact that "y- -t" and "a- -ing" are archaic is not, in itself, a bar to including them.

I'm coming down in favour of keeping these, although the format might need to be rethought, and we might need redirects/cross-references from the other possible forms (using ellipsis, etc). — Paul G 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve created twelve redirects (three each) for a- -ing, en- -en, em- -en, and y- -t along the lines of: a--ing, a-...-ing, and a- ... -ing — are there any others that you think are necessary? And what ideas about formatting changes do you have? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, it is specious, at best, for you to be creating spurious entries derived or related to the term nominated for deletion based on less than enthusiatic comments of support least of all, when only from one single individual. So far, it looks like there is not yet sufficient support for deletion, but I expect that may change, particularly when you use antagonistic tactics such as this to "support" your newly invented part-of-speech. Creating copious amounts of dubious entries just means that there is more for sysops to clean up, after you. --Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, rightly or wrongly, interpreted Paul G’s comment (“we might need redirects/cross-references from the other possible forms (using ellipsis, etc)”) as an implied request that someone go create those said redirects (as it’s not the most interesting of tasks). It was not intended to “support” my case with these circumfixes — if it had been, it would have been a rather foolish error of judgement, as such “antagonistic tactics” would be likely to make those who oppose their retention hostile and make those who are lukewarmly in favour think again. Therefore, I assure that that was not my reason for creating the redirects, and that I am acting in good faith (why else would I myself nominate em- -en for deletion, thus facilitating their removal?) — as a gesture of good will, I shall blank the twelve redirect entries or tag them with {{delete}}, if you want me to. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank any entries. Tagging these with {{delete}} can wait until these others are resolved. It should be plain that my complaint is that you took direct action, while the applicability of that action was being tentatively explored. The fact that the Appendix: solution exists, has existed and is generally a better approach, has now been obscured and undermined by the dozen extra cleanup items. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, my actions were intended to assist. There’s nothing more that I can say. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we decide about en- -en, y- -t is definitely not a circumfix. It is just inherited from Old English ge- and -ed. Perhaps you could argue that OE used ge- -ed as a circumfix, but modern English does not. Widsith 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prefix y- has no other function in Modern English except forming past participles in conjunction with -t, therefore, y- -t is an English circumfix. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Raifʻhār Doremítzwr. Whereas en- may be found before words that do not have the -en suffix, I cannot think of any word which prefixes a morphological y- without the -t suffix. Perhaps we ought to delete em- -en and en- -en, but keep y- -t? — Beobach972 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is wrong. y- does not ‘form’ past participles, with or without -t. To call it a circumfix is to imply that yclept was formed by adding y- -t to clepe. But this is incorrect. The word as a whole was inherited from Old English geclypod. This is also true of every participle which uses y- -t. That is why I say that although you could make a case for the circumfix existing in OE, it does not in modern English. Not only is it not productive now, it never has been in modern English. Widsith 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So it isn't a circumfix, either. — Beobach972 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true of yclept. However Edmund Spencer et alii did use the y- -t to affect a faux archaïque style. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? Widsith 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the words that appear to use a y- -[past element suffix] construction from Book I of Edmund Spencer’s The Faerie Queene; I don’t know which of these are Old English words and which are his neologisms: ycladd, ydrad, yclad, yrockt, yblent, ymounted, yborne, yplast, ypainted, yrent, yfed, ycled, ybrought, ywrought, ywounded, ybred, ycarv’d, yledd, ypight, ylinked, and ywrit. Wikisource has a fair few other transcriptions of his works, so if none of the above are neologisms, I can investigate further if needed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this list convinces me beyond any doubt that y- -t is not a circumfix. What is does show is that y- is being used archaically to form past participles, but we already have an entry which describes that phenomenon. Consider. Of your 21 examples, only 8 even use the element y- -t. You have tried to explain that by describing it as y- -past element suffix. But what exactly is the "past element suffix" in yfed or yborne? There is no suffix. The clear conclusion is that the formation is y- + past form = archaic past participle. From that we conclude (and it would be difficult to argue otherwise) that such forms as ybrought are not y- + brough +-t, but simply y- + brought. You are just getting confused because t was more common as a past ending than now, when ed has largely taken its place. Widsith 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m with you in most respects here. In truth, I think you’re being too generous — even without reference to yfed and yborne, ybrought et alibi are clearly not examples of the use of y- -t (for the archaïc past participle of bring is not “ybringt”) — hence my “describing it as y- -past element suffix”. Indeed, it appears that y- -ed is more common than y- -t is. Nonetheless, y- is not functioning as an independent prefix, as (if you were to consult y- -t’s etymology) it is a perfective prefix, only occurring in conjunction with a past participle conjugation — a morphological phenomenon which, by virtue of the definitions of the words involved, can but be described as a circumfix (unless, that is, there is some yet-more-obscure word for a morphological unit which is a prefix + non-suffix inflexion; and in any case, how would we list such an entry?). Therefore, we still need y- -t, but we also need y- -ed and y- too — the former two for linking thereto from the etymology sections of the words wherein they feature, and the latter for words wherein the y- occurs in conjunction with an irregular “strong declension” past participle conjugation (the y- entry would have to be very explicit about the fact that it is not an independent prefix). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the morphological phenomenon here. Blimey. Yes, we all agree that y- is perfective and gets appended to a past form. That, as you say, is a morphological phenomenon. What it's not is a circumfix. If it were, there would only be one. As it is, you are now having to propose y- -t, y- ed, y- -en just to cover all eventualities. Surely it's clear that this isn't three circumfixes, it's just evidence of the fact that that there are several ways to form a past tense and y- can be stuck on any one of them. I'd also draw your attention to the fact that in practice this means that pseudo-archaic writers just use y- + preterite. On the few occasions where they don't (e.g. yborn not *ybore) this is because the word was not formed in English but inherited from Old English (geboren in this case). I know you have your heart set on this but please....rethink. Widsith 13:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; yrethought. How, then, do we express in the y- entry that it cannot occur alone, but rather only in conjunction with verb forms conjugated for the past participle tense? That aside, would it not still be a good idea to have entries for y- -t, y- -ed, and, as you add, y- -(e)n — being that they’re the most common and regular-ish occurrences of the y- -[preterite] circumfix (or whatever it ought most appropriately to be called)? By the way, I fail to see why, in having a variable ending, that makes y- -[preterite] not a circumfix — en- -en becomes em- -en when the word it encloses begins with ‘b’, but that fact is hardly a strong basis for denying its circumfixational status — it’s just one circumfix with a variant form (in the same way that sub- is just one prefix, despite its having several variant forms depending upon the word which it prefixes). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've y-added a Usage note to y-, have a look. Hopefully it makes the point that, when y-adopted by later writers, it was simply ystuck on the front of existing past participle forms. Widsith 18:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems adequate. I’ve changed the definition a little to express that it cannot occur independently. Now, how do we deal with its common incarnations as y- -t, y- -ed, and y- -en? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already had. All such forms can be analysed as either y- + past participle, or as reflexes of OE forms. Widsith 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the y- perfective prefix only ever coöccurs with past partiple (suffixational) elements as a de facto circumfix. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't! As we've just seen, it occurs with a past participle, not a suffix! Some past participles are themselves formed using suffixes, to be sure, but many are not. This phenomenon is not a circumfix. Otherwise you would not be able to interpret such words as yborn, yfed etc. Widsith 07:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was ambiguously written. The prefective prefix y- only ever coöccurs with past participle inflexions — in the cases where it coöccurs with past partiple suffixational inflexions, they function as a de facto circumfix; in the cases where it coöccurs with past participle “strong declension” inflexions, I’m lost for words as to what to call it — is it a “prefix + infix” perhaps? –Except the strong declension inflexions aren’t really infixes… So what do we call them? (Fortunately, as we can’t really have an entry for it, we don’t need to find / invent a suitable POS header title.) They’re technically not circumfixes, although that is the type of morpheme they resemble most… † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're technically not circumfixes, although that is the type of morpheme they resemble most. The word you're looking for is prefix. The mysterious ‘second element’ is most usefully and accurately described as a word. Not a ‘past inflexional element’, not a ‘past participle suffix’, but a whole word: a past participle to be precise. I can't even tell if you're joking now. Trying to analyse these forms as involving a circumfix is unnecessary and unhelpful and doomed to fail. Now please God can we knock this discussion on the head. Widsith 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to be obtuse; I’ll try to explain my reasoning again… The y- “prefix” is just one part of a morphological unit which forms past participles. That morphological unit is “y- + -t / -ed / -(e)n / [strong declension inflexion]” — namely, a circumfix, as it is a combination of a prefix and a suffix (except for, as I have already mentioned, the cases of “y- + [strong declension inflexion]”, which technically (that is, by virtue of the definitions of the words used) aren’t circumfixes because their second elements are not suffixes). The issue, however, is confused by the fact that, without any exception of which I’m aware, past participles in Modern English have dropped the perfective y- element (there may, theoretically, be a verb whose only correct past participle form is the circumfixed form — such a verb would have to have become obsolete very early on, before “y-dropping” became commonplace). However, the fact that the past participle suffixes (the -t / -ed / -(e)n / [strong declension inflexion] elements) can and do function independently does not imply that the past participle perfective element (the y- “prefix”) can or does function independently. The y- element carries no meaning and never occurs other than in past participles in conjunction with the suffixing element. Y- doesn’t prefix to a past participle, it circumfixes to an uninflected verb along with a suffixing element — the y- element is part of the morpheme that expresses the past participiality of the verb. Is my reasoning a little clearer now? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The y- element carries no meaning on its own, but it does not gain its meaning through being combined with a ‘suffixing element’ but through being combined with a past participle. Whether the past participle involved uses a suffix or not is neither here nor there - some do, some don't. Widsith 14:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y- is the element which “perfects” the participial morpheme — it’s (an obsolete) part of the affix that’s added to verbs to make them past participles, not a(n obsolete) part of the past participle itself. By the way, the issue that “y- + [strong declension inflexion]” cannot technically be called a circumfix seems like it could be resolved by calling it, instead, a “confix” (for, whereas a circumfix is a combination of a prefix and a suffix, a confix is simply a combination of more than one affix of any type). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we have "combination" entries for multi-word terms, they are not "words" and by and large, deviate slightly from what other dictionaries do. But we do identify them by recognizable parts of speech. While I can understand the desire to have the "combination entry" for en...en as a curious combination of a prefix and a suffix, I cannot accept the ORIGINAL RESEARCH aspects of asserting that the whole of the English language now widely accepts a brand new, previously unheard-of "part of speech" called a circumfix. (NB: try running that past a standard spell-checker! Many other regular dictionaries don't recognize that as a word, at all. So much for "established linguistics terminology" for foreign languages, eh?) Since nothing is being offered as a reasonable substitute heading, this should be DELETED from the main name-space, and listed in the Appendix as a curious combination of prefixes and suffixes. The likelihood of someone looking up en-, -en to learn what it means is absurd; a reasonable person would look for an appendix on suffixes or prefixes (or both.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that, like most of our affix entries, en- -en et alibi will be looked up due to being linked to from etymology sections (as in embiggen) — this is especially true if our affix entries contain comprehensive lists of words in which those affixes feature — in that case it is perfectly believable that a Wiktionary user would look up en- -en to learn precisely what it means and what words feature it. This is only OR to the extent that I am applying my analytical mind to the phenomena of word formation — if that is OR, then so is recognising the difference between grammatical and ungrammatical constructions or deciding that a word spelt in a certain way is a typo or a scanno and not an intentional variant spelling. Furthermore, please note that this can’t be OR as a number of internet sites already discuss circumfixes and claim that they exist in English. E.g.: [2], [3]. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC) ··· I’ve recently added circumfix to Wiktionary. Yes, this word is rare — that is because circumfixation is a rare morphological phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is the only reasonable name for a POS header there is — what else could we possibly call a- -ing, em- -en, en- -en, and y- -t? Look at the word’s etymology — “circum-, around + -fix, morpheme” (see the entry for -fix for an elaborated definition thereof) — it does exactly what it says on the tin, that is, it’s an affix that attaches around a word (rather than to its beginning or end or within it). Besides, even if Wiktionary rejects the notion that English has any circumfixes whatsoever, we will still need a “Circumfix” POS header for languages that undeniably do have them (German, Dutch, and numerous others), which means that the argument for rejecting a- -ing, em- -en, en- -en, and y- -t because it would require using another, unique POS header is invalid. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, embiggen was never cleaned up, as the expectation that such nonsense would simply be deleted, means that people spend their time cleaning up real entries. Of course it should not link incorrectly to non-existant entries. Of course it should link to em- and -en separately.

Now, proponents of "circumfix" have stated before that the term is used in foreign language study. I find that harder and harder to believe, given that most dictionaries don't carry the term at all. I find it even harder to believe, given that most spell-check features identify it as a misspelling. But even assuming that it is valid grammar terminology, it does not apply to English.

Your suggestion that a heading used for a foreign language, might therefore be valid in English is completely false. Why do we have pages like WT:AC or WT:AJ? No, you cannot use the heading "circumfix" to describe English terms. That would take a couple things: first gaining support here on WT:BP (which you currently do not have) and then a successful one month (or two month) vote on WT:VOTE. Using foreign language headings in English entries has in the past made it harder for my software to detect the errors...but remains incorrect, whether detected in a timely manner or not.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embiggen is now listed on WT:RFV, but I think that it will survive that process (it already has two of the three necessary citations). What it links to should depend upon its actual etymology, which is, unfortunately, ambiguous — it could have been created by the redundant affixation of both the prefix em- and the suffix -en (as you suggest) or it could have been created by the circumfixation of em- -en (as I suggest) — my view is that as big became embiggen in just one step (and not via “big → embig → embiggen” or “big → biggen → embiggen”), then it strongly implies that em- & -en are functioning as one circumfixing morphological unit (em- -en).

By the way, I wasn’t arguing that because the circumfix header exists for other languages, it should therefore exist for English, I was arguing that as it already exists for other languages, opposing its use in English on the grounds that it would be a new POS header is invalid. I ask again, what else can we call a- -ing, em- -en, en- -en, and y- -t, other than circumfixes? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for what we should call them, remains the word "deleted." --Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a serious suggestion — for the name of a POS header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, indeed, is the only serious possibility. --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I expect we’ll be browsing through Category:English deletions or Category:English deleteds to look for such entries then? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If circumfixes exist in other languages, then the POS header should, indeed, exist for those languages. However, it is my understanding that the specific English-language 'circumfixes' listed are nonsense, and should be deleted. — Beobach972 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about any language other than English; the idiotic suggestion all along has been that such a thing exists in English. --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain authorities disagree; certain evidence contradicts. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it so impossible for you to furnish even one? (Let alone, sufficient sources to convince anyone that the phenomenon is recognized in English.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com Unabridged [v 1.1] (2006) gives the English circumfix a- -ing as the example in its entry for circumfix, whilst The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language [4^th Ed.] (2006) gives the two English circumfixes a- -ing and y- -t as the examples in its entry for circumfix. Wikipedia and other sources (references given elsewhere herein) have specified en- -en / em- -en as English circumfixes. Recognised or not, my logical proof here shows that, in analytic terms (that is, by virtue of the definitions of the words used), em- -en / en- -en is/are (an) English circumfix(es). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the debate here seems to actually be two debates:

Whether to have a 'Circumfix' header, or not, for other languages.
Whether to have a 'Circumfix' header for English :
1. Does the phenomenon exist in English?
2. Are any of the examples provided so far valid?

— Beobach972 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I ask : does anybody object to allowing a Circumfix header (for languages such as, eg, Japanese and Guaraní which unequivocally use circumfixes)? Whether this POS should be allowed for English is an issue that should be resolved separately. — Beobach972 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is blatantly false. Conflating "other languages" with English is unacceptable for this discussion. --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Beobach is purposefully trying to distinguish the issues here and to treat them separately — consider “does anybody object to allowing a Circumfix header for languages … which unequivocally use circumfixes? Whether this POS should be allowed for English is an issue that should be resolved separately”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that there’s any maintained opposition to using the Circumfix header for languages which have long been recognised to make use of circumfixes (to your Japanese and Guaraní I would add German and Dutch).
If the morphological unit is more or less proven to exist, I believe that “Circumfix” would be the only appropriate header wherewith to describe the few that there are in English.
1. I believe so — sources of varying authority here and there point to a- -ing, y- -t, em- -en, and en- -en as English circumfixes. (There are three as far as I can tell — em- -en is just a prebilabial variant of en- -en, and there seem to be variant forms of y- -t as well; e.g.: y- -ed and y- -(e)n.)
2. The most convincing example of the use of the en- -en circumfix is probably engolden. Widsith and I (see hereinbefore) are presently in disagreement as to the existence of the y- -t circumfix. However, noöne has yet seen fit to challenge the assertion that a- -ing is an English circumfix. The many alleged examples of this phenomenon that I have given thus far have certainly not all been explained away.

† Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the correct notation of prefix + form + suffix is exactly how they should be represented in etymologies. Inventing a new POS for English is original research. --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my logical proof linked thereto hereinbefore. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: No consensus or compelling argument to keep or delete is evident above. Please feel free to re-list, but try to keep the discussion on topic this time. Regards, -- Visviva 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]