Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:ex-chancellor. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:ex-chancellor, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:ex-chancellor in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:ex-chancellor you have here. The definition of the word Talk:ex-chancellor will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:ex-chancellor, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
WT:SOP: "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP).". ex-chancellor is an expression whose full meaning (former chancellor) can easily be derived from its separate components (ex- and chancellor). An English learner knows exactly what to look up when they encounter ex-chancellor thanks to the hyphen. Also, you can be ex- almost anything. Compare Talk:ex-Christian. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. ex-chancellor, ex-minister, and ex-Communist are single words, and affixes shouldn't be seen as distinct "parts" since they can't exist on their own. It doesn't make sense for our rules against hyphenated compounds to apply to entries that aren't compounds to begin with.
ex-chancellor, ex-minister, and ex-Communist are single words - Irrelevant, WT:SOP talks about expressions. They are expressions.
and affixes shouldn't be seen as distinct "parts" since they can't exist on their own - Patently false. People refer to bound morphemes as "parts" all the time: , — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Irrelevant, WT:SOP talks about expressions. They are expressions.
And WT:CFI talks about single words being distinct from idiomatic phrases, so our policies don't seem to agree with each other. Either way, what matters here is that we've effectively banned one of the most common prefixes in English. That doesn't benefit us or our readers.
Patently false. People refer to bound morphemes as "parts" all the time: ,
And WT:CFI talks about single words being distinct from idiomatic phrases, so our policies don't seem to agree with each other. Either way, what matters here is that we've effectively banned one of the most common prefixes in English. That doesn't benefit us or our readers. - I agree that some of the other text in CFI (not SOP!) needs revision in this regard. I disagree that including ex- SOPs benefits our readers in any way. I would argue that banning such entries is what benefits our readers because that way editors are not wasting their time on redundant entries that could better be invested in adding novel information by documenting non-SOPs.
I disagree that including ex- SOPs benefits our readers in any way.
How doesn't it? Readers benefit from more complete coverage. Even if you disagree, it's not like including these entries would harm our readers either.
I would argue that banning such entries is what benefits our readers because that way editors are not wasting their time on redundant entries that could better be invested in adding novel information by documenting non-SOPs.
It's not like editors are being forced to create prefixed entries at gunpoint. Most people will continue to add unique entries, while users who want to fill out Category:English terms prefixed with ex- won't be blocked from doing so.
This is completely off the mark. WT:SOP states that the meaning has to not be easily derived. The meaning of non-Catholic is easily derived from the definitions given in non- and Catholic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't follow the pattern of "X that is Y".
As explained in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/October#non-French, I don't think that the sentence you've quoted shortcuts the entire CFI for attested single words. It is obvious that, for instance, the rare misspelling, typo and proper noun sections of CFI also apply to single words, so why do you think that WT:SOP, another section of CFI, suddenly doesn't apply to single words, especially considering that WT:SOP is written with language that makes it perfectly applicable to single words? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
To my mind, "if it is a single word or it is idiomatic" explicitly "shortcuts" idiomaticity, while it does not explicitly shortcut the misspelling and proper noun sections. If idiomaticity should apply to single words, why say "if it is a single word" in the first place? It could just say "attested and idiomatic", like it used to. If editors really want to delete non-standard (do they?), a vote could change the text to "if it is a single non-hyphenated word or it is idiomatic." I find it inadvisable for the reasons expounded in the linked BP discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
RFD-kept: numerically, no consensus for deletion (2:2). Strength-of-argument-wise, the policy says that "including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic", and that is a keep; that interpretatiton of mine is disputed above, but then, we are back to numerical consensus or its lack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
