Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:themseaufwärts. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:themseaufwärts, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:themseaufwärts in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:themseaufwärts you have here. The definition of the word Talk:themseaufwärts will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:themseaufwärts, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I don't see why singlewordness would be an argument against SOP. Decisionmaker is equally book case SOP and should go as well, yes. Korn (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Requires prior knowledge that this is a compound word, something that is not obvious to a non-German speaker like myself. Actually, the fact that German even has compound words may not be known to many. --Dmol (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
That is a sort of good point, but what about little attested languages? Do you propose we should allow SOP terms for languages that write these terms without spaces?Korn (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
For LDLs, a term must have at least one mention (not even a use), e.g. being listed in a print dictionary is sufficient. So even for those languages we have to show that someone else has either used or mentioned the term in question. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
The arguments in Tanzschule are convincing, but do not actually hold up to the current policy which says 'if SOP, delete'. This is SOP and hence has to go according to the rules set up. I propose to amend the CFI to accommodate for foreign languages with continuously spelled compounds. Because I would interpret "separate" as 'parts exists outside of compound' and never have gotten the idea that it should mean 'compound is not spelled in a single word'. (I still don't think that's what was meant, actually.) Policies should be specific, though. While proposing this change, I still point out the floodgates that opens one more time; maybe someone can find a workaround, or we just accept the possibility. Korn (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Let me cite the actual policy for you, from WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and let me note that WT:CFI does not contain the string "if SOP, delete". The policy text is this, boldface mine: "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." The components Tanz and Schule are not considered separate in Tanzschule, and therefore Tanzschule is considered idiomatic per our policy. Our policy does not define "separate", but our common practice does. Since this is an Angloamerican project, common practice is important, and can comfortably complement our policies where they are silent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Believe it or not, I have read the policy. It says 'CFI are attested and idiomatic', it says 'non-idiomatic is called SOP', this is a place to delete entries which do not meet CFI, ergo this project says: If SOP, delete.
To repeat myself: The term 'themseaufwärts' is not idiomatic as defined here, since, as you quoted yourself, looking at each of its separate components allows you do derive the meaning of the compound term.
If you want to tell me that my interpretation of the word 'separate' ('each part taken for itself') is only a result of my complete and utter inability to use the English language and instead 'separate' can only mean 'currently being rendered in written form with spaces between all the words that can exist on their own', alright. If that isn't what you're saying, then the current policy isn't silent, it's, at best, ambivalent, although it seems rather plain to me. And instead of having this type of discussion popping up in regular intervals, it might be less time-consuming to just add a sentence of clarification. _Korn (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's the sense of "separate" that gives rise to "separable prefix": "auf" in "aufmachen" is not separate while in "machen sie's auf", "auf" is separate. And Wiktionary definition of separate is "Apart from (the rest); not connected to or attached to (anything else)", which fits as well. It's like German "getrennt"; Duden for getrennt synonym section seems to confirm my understanding. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Again, we all know what 'separate' means. I'm also perfectly fine with accepting your interpretation that the policy means to say 'separately written' rather than 'separately considered', but as it is, it doesn't. Either way, though, since I don't actually agree with the idiomaticity criterion, I think I wasted enough of everybody's time arguing about its proper implementation just because we're stricken with it. I retract the RFD. I'll remove the tag and archive the discussion next week. Korn (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
