Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Hitler. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Hitler, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Hitler in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Hitler you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Hitler will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Hitler, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Translations
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I assume that, for Lithuanian, the translation of the wordHitler is the wordHitleris, not Adolfas Hitleris. Am I right? I don't understand why wrong translations have been added (by Atitarev, then by Stephen G. Brown). Names such as Adolfas Hitleris don't belong to Wiktionary, anyway, because they are not words (but they'll probably be created from translations by the appropriate bot). Could somebody explain? Lmaltier18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you check the edit history more carefully, I haven't added but changed the formatting of the translations. The original decision to add "Adolf" wasn't mine. Your edit - wiping off all translations wasn't a very a good one. Anatoli20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
In English, Hitler alone carries the full meaning of Adolph Hitler. In some languages, there is less laxity about leaving Adolph out of the name. I haven’t looked at recent additions, but most of the entries seem to reflect how the term is preferentially used in each language when the meaning is specifically Adolph Hitler. —Stephen21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
How can you tell? I've checked the lt.wikipedia page, as a test, and it uses Hitleris alone several times. It seems logical to assume that the best, most precise, translation for Hitler is Hitleris, even when Adolph is implied, and that it's the same for most languages mentioned. Lmaltier14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
(unindent) I tend to agree with Lmaltier in that the translations should only state the surname whenever possible, that is, whenever the target language often uses the surname alone to refer to Adolf Hitler. --Dan Polansky10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have somewhat boldly removed the first names. Wiktionary does not include full names of people, per common practice so far, so these are not inclusion-worthy anyway. Presumably, many languages would use the surname alone to refer to Adolf Hitler; this needs to be verified per language, though. --Dan Polansky10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
That was too bold :) Korean is written with the first name but romanised WITHOUT, Hindi is written without but romanised WITH it. --Anatoli23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
RFD discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments10 people in discussion
Delete. It's not a specific sense: the interesting thing in a language dictionary is that it's a surname. By its very nature, a surname is shared by many people (this is very different from towns which happen to share the same name, each town is a different sense, and these senses may have different linguistic properties). People with this surname can be found in Wikipedia (the link to Wikipedia is needed as a bridge to this encyclopedic point of view). Lmaltier 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Unless we make an exception when there are derived words (here Hitlerism, Hitlerian)? But the sense as a surname seems to be sufficient to accommodate these derived words (of course, in any case, the reference to Adolph is required in pages dedicated to these derived words). Lmaltier20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
We already have Hitler#Noun. The question is whether there is attributive use not actually referring to the individual (ie, the "Hitler years" referring to 1920s-1945) or to the common noun sense we have, eg, a "Hitler mustache", "Hitler hair/hairdo/haircut", "Hitler salute". Move to RfVDCDuringTALK23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I assume you mean "Move to RFV", because I don't see it there anywhere. Either way, why would we move it to RFV? There already is a attributive sense, and senses specifically referring to the person don't meet CFI regardless of citations. --Yair rand05:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, please and thank you: strike the specific sense. —MichaelZ. 2010-03-23 03:00 z
I'm not too sure of your criteria, but surely a sentence such as "What would have happened if Hitler had never been born?" can only be talking about Adolf. The sense should be kept. BedfordLibrary15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
(My comment copied from RFV) Keep. I have expanded the def to say - German Chancellor between 1933 and 1945, and (by extension), Nazi imperialism and dictatorship especially during World War 2-. When we hear that Hitler invaded Poland, we are talking about the Nazi government, not the man personally. Might need a bit of a tweak on the wording, but you get the idea--Dmol13:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
"German Chancellor between 1933 and 1945." Tagged, not listed. IMO this is not dictionary material, though we should possibly have a usage note about the unpopularity of the surname (I suppose many people changed their names) after Adolf and his fascist period. Equinox◑01:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFD. It's in clearly widespread use, and WT:CFI says we don't have consensus for any specific criteria for names of specific entities. —RuakhTALK02:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFD if needed, but Keep if that is done. I have expanded the def to say German Chancellor between 1933 and 1945, and (by extension), Nazi imperialism and dictatorship especially during World War 2. When we hear that Hitler invaded Poland, we are talking about the Nazi government, not the man personally. Might need a bit of a tweak on the wording, but you get the idea.--Dmol02:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. The use of Hitler here refers to his position as the ultimate decision-maker. I would say the name of almost every person having the sole decision-making power has been used that way: Bush invaded Iraq, as an example. --Hekaheka11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFD sense and keep there. Tagged for rfv-sense on 20 February 2010 by DCDuring; previously tagged for rfd-sense on 18 February 2010 by Yair rand. --Dan Polansky07:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
It looks like it was there back when we had a semi-objective "attributive use" rule. Back then, it was standard practice to send such terms to RFV. Nowadays we have a very different rule, one that can only be implemented via RFD. —RuakhTALK14:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Striking again as cited and thus RFV passed. Disclaimer: I am the one who has provided most of the citations, so I have something like a conflict of interests. In any case, feel free to review this striking and state reasons for why it would be invalid. --Dan Polansky13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
"czech"
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"probably related to Czech Hidlar / Hidlarcek" needs proof. Not a single onomastic source scientifically states even the possibility of this this origin. Unless there is proof for this "being related", erase!
