Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Zirkusschule. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Zirkusschule, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Zirkusschule in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Zirkusschule you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Zirkusschule will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Zirkusschule, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Keep attested compound German nouns spelled without spaces. This is the English Wiktionary, where anglophones look things up, and they don't know where to (or, perhaps, even to) break up the words.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, yes and no. I mean, technically, I suppose that's true, but that's like saying "if outdoor clothing were sum of parts, meaning 'clothing for the outdoors', it'd be outdoors clothing": English drops the apparent plural when making an apparently plural noun modify another noun before it, and German drops the capital when making a noun modify another noun before it and connected to it.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Do you think that including all words is futile? Then, the whole project is futile. Would you delete doglike because it's built in a fully regular way? This is exactly the same case. The important thing is that it's considered as a word. Have a look at derived words of de:Wasser... Lmaltier21:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
The vast majority of words in some languages are unique but built in fully regular ways. The only way to build a dictionary of an Inuit language is to acknowledge that, as a substantial percentage of words are regular and nonce, and looking up the words without parsing them is doomed. If English were like that, and half the words in this paragraph were nonce, then we would have to approach dictionary making differently. The question is, does including attestable SoP compound words in German actually make the dictionary more useful, or will we always have such a pitiful subset that we would be better of demanding that users understand German word compounding before trying to parse German, like they would Eskimo?--Prosfilaes02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Probably the majority of even English entries in Wiktionary are unique but built in fully regular ways (regular plurals, inflected verb forms, comparatives, superlatives, most numerals). Then there are the verb forms of Romance languages etc. Keep, or we are in for a major overhaul. --Hekaheka05:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
They're not unique; all the English entries in Wiktionary should have three cites. More to the point, most texts usable under CFI would have no non-proper nouns not suitable for entry into Wiktionary; whereas a language that would put "most texts usable under CFI would lack" as one word would have most texts having non-proper nouns unsuitable for entry into Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes06:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
And Eskimo would do that? Phenomenal! I had no idea that Eskimo words would be so unique. But that is not the case with German. Zirkusschule gets 142,000 raw hits in a Google search. Looks pretty much like a word to me. --Hekaheka18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Is this fear of including "sum of part" compounds based on an assumption that accepting them would lead to an exploding number of entries? If so, I doubt that words like Zirkusschule (and Baumschule and Tanzschule) will cause such an explosion. It's not like any two words will form a useful compound (there are no Zirkusbluhme, Zirkusbuch, Zirkuskindergarten, etc.). The compounds with Zirkus- and -schule, respectively, are a few dozens, not more. We should define more carefully what the problem is that we want to avoid, and study where that problem arises. --LA218:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good thinking, LA2. I think keeping only the attestable compounds is a good compromise which serves most needs, and doesn't tap the resources too heavily. If we are worried about resources, a bigger problem are the potentially very numerous word forms of heavily inflected languages such as Romance and Fenno-Ugric languages. I once estimated that the total count of all sensible (easily perceived) combinations of Finnish cases, verb forms, suffixes and clitics may very well be closer to one billion than 100 million. We have discussed this issue within the active Finnish contributors, and I believe we are approaching a solution which would considerably limit the theoretical maximum. --Hekaheka22:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I fail to see why another Wiki-project's policy is binding on us. I'm not going to tell them what to do, and they will probably return the favor.--Prosfilaes03:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Keep. If we ever get CFI for German that excludes some closed compounds (spelled without spaces), then I think that closed compounds with low number of stems still should be kept. "Zirkusschule" has two stems, like "Kopfschmerz". --Dan Polansky09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
