Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:sentimental value. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:sentimental value, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:sentimental value in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:sentimental value you have here. The definition of the word Talk:sentimental value will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:sentimental value, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
My knee-jerk reaction is delete, but the definition given in the entry may include a little more than is directly meant by the two individual component terms. Also several reputable dictionaries at OneLook do include this term. -- · (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
It does seem SoP. It is a very common collocation. My feeling is also delete. I increasingly feel that we need some kind of appendix of common collocations, e.g. (Hunston 2002, Corpora in applied linguistics) "acutely aware", "readily available", "vitally important": these are words that occur together very often in English, but that are never taught to foreign learners. Apparently, there is a big groundswell of native English speakers who think these things are important enough to have dict entries! What should we do? Equinox◑01:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Appendix of common colloctions might be a good idea, which would solve the old "translation target" -problem. Many English common collocations are compound words in many other languages. I guess that few users are concerned about Finnish, but it can serve as an example. "Sentimental value" is tunnearvo < tunne(“feeling, emotion, sensation, sentiment”) + arvo(“value, worth”) in Finnish. It's good to have a place where one can check which of the thinkable combinations is the common collocation. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would err on the side of keep, since it is so common and seems more than just SoP. But I would add that the question of its being "one word" in Finnish is probably not so clear, though in all fairness I know no Finnish. But at least in the case of other agglutinative languages (most notably German), the fact that something can be written without any spaces does not a word make. Räumungsbefehl(“eviction notice”) and Steuertricks(“tax tricks”) are not deserving of entries (although we do have the dubious entry häätöilmoitus). Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän doesn't deserve an entry either, in my opinion, but someone created one because of the novelty value. Aperiarcam (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with häätöilmoitus being dubious. Ilmoitus has at least six possible translations into English, of which "notice", "notification" and "announcement" are thinkable options for this particular translation. According to Ngram, only "notice" is used in this context. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
There has been debate on whether no spaces makes something a word for our purposes, and there is no consensus. There is no simple definition of what is a word even (or especially) in languages like German and Finnish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Re Common Collocations Appendix. I have been after something like this for many years. It seems there might at last be a certain degree of support. I remember suggesting that we could allow a collapsible table of common collocations within the main headword definition. Anyone agree? -- By the way, either keep or add to common collocations. -- ALGRIF talk10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Hekaheka. I really do not think we need translations for common collocations. Mainly because they are nothing special that cannot be translated directly. It is simply "the way we commonly use this word" information. Extra stuff, which could be of interest to many English L2 speakers. For instance "dumb luck" does not deserve a headword entry, but it is a very common collocation. Put it under "Common Collocations" in both dumb and luck. However, no translation is needed, as it is pretty obvious to anyone how this would translate into any language. -- ALGRIF talk08:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Even without translations, a centralized appendix of all common English collocations would become monstrously large, so storing collocations in (or near) individual entries seems more practical, more scalable. There was some support in 2012 for having 'collocations' sections in entries, and we currently sometimes include very common collocations in usage notes (see e.g. goods), not to mention usexes, but it's not feasible to add translations to collocations listed in either or those ways : the sections would grow too large and take up too much visual and byte space in the entry. I suggest we create a 'Collocations:' namespace, to be given its own tab like 'Citations' and to be made prominent by being linked-to using a {{seeCites}}-type template from entries. In this namespace, we would list common collocations as the glosses to translation tables, to which translations could be added. I have mocked up a 'Collocations tab' at Talk:goods; note that SOP translations are linked accordingly. (We could just move all those tables to a =====Collocations==== aection in the entry, but as I said, I think that'd consume too much space.) - -sche(discuss)07:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
