Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-09/Deleting list of protologisms

Protologisms fail to meet WT:ATTEST. They are inventions rather than being real as far as our knowledge and evidence. The list proposed for deletion is subject to no criteria for inclusion whatsoever.

Examples of terms from the list that have close to no web hits and thus would not be included in Wiktionary mainspace even if we relaxed our inclusion criteria as far as permanently recorded media: aabaology, aabaphobia, abigailianism, anachrospasm, arneticologism, atheognosis, aximosampia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This really leaves a very big loophole that I'm sure users would be eager to exploit. They only have to say "I didn't invent it, someone else did, I'm only putting it here". —CodeCat 17:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

So what do you propose? According to the current proposal, the phrase only remains on Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines as part of the definition of a protologism. WT:CFI and its WT:ATTEST remains in force no matter what Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines says. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This?

• "Protologisms: words that have been made up by the poster and are not attested as per WT:ATTEST".

==>

• "Protologisms: words that are not attested as per WT:ATTEST".

? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've made a fix; do you like it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is much better. —CodeCat 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Proto‐Indo‐European, Proto‐Germanic, Proto‐Celtic, Proto‐Italic, Proto‐Klingon…better nuke ’em all I guess. Seriously, as long as they are outside of the mainspace, why should I care? --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reconstructions are still testable and thus verifiable. We have the ability to either confirm or reject a reconstruction. For protologisms we don't have that possibility so they are inherently different. —CodeCat 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your statements do not make any sense to me. Reconstructions are generally inattestable. Are you talking about references? Those can apply to protologisms, too. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

We only require attestation because it is our means of testing and verifying the existence of terms. But it's not the only way to test and verify terms. Reconstructions can be tested and verified through other means, such as by matching them to attested terms via regular sound changes. —CodeCat 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The fact is that reconstructed terms cannot be attested in writing. Period. We don’t toss words in the mainspace just because they sound similar to newer words. We toss words in the mainspace because they are attested in poorly scanned books on Google Books or attested in spam‐infested fora on Google Groups. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regardless, writing dictionaries of reconstructed words is an established scholarly practice, whereas writing dictionaries of made up words that nobody has ever used is not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reconstructions that can be verified as being listed in etymological dictionaries, or (a bit worse option) papers by historical linguists are OK. Reconstructions made up by Wiktionary editors that cannot be verified in the works of real linguists should be deleted, just like this list. Making up reconstruction and "verifying" them through sound changes is no different than making up words composed of lexical roots and various affixes, and "verifying" their meaning by rules of derivational morphology (think of various *phobias). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it's no different. So we should allow them, but kept separate from CFI-meeting terms, like we already do now. —CodeCat 19:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• That fact that the terms on the list fail to meet WT:ATTEST is not the main reason for deletion of the list, although the rationale somewhat misleadingly states it as the first one. The main reason for deleting the list is that the terms on it do not meet anything, neither WT:ATTEST nor anything else. They are just arbitrary inventions. We might as well have "Appendix:Terms that do not meet CFI", which I deem pointless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah just because some unattested terms are in the the appendix namespace doesn't mean we should have all unattested terms in the appendix namespace - and it's an infinite set, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Should we put reconstructions in their own namespace? —CodeCat 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, but how is this related to protologisms? Reconstructions are subject to elimination, aren't they? Each reconstruction aims at identifying something that might have existed, as far as we know. Arbitrary inventions such as "aabaology" do not exist; they are not in use and we have no reason to believe they ever were. As for reconstructions, either you source reconstructions, and then some of them are definitely subject to elimination as unsourced. Or you do not source them, but then you have another process of criticizing them and eliminating them, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It's not directly related to protologisms, but I wondered if it would alleviate the "anything goes in Appendix" complaint. —CodeCat 20:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not think there is any problem with reconstructed terms being in appendix namespace, especially if sourced. For reconstructed terms, the attestation inclusion requirement should be replaced with another inclusion requirement, although a recent BP discussion showed we do not agree on which one. The problem with the list of protologisms--no matter the namespace--is that it operates on "anything goes" principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be more practical if reconstructed terms were given the same kind of entry names as regular terms, but with Reconstructed: prefixed to them. I'm not really sure what "Appendix" is supposed to mean anyway. It evokes a comparison with a paper dictionary, but we're not a paper dictionary nor are we trying to be one. So what does "Appendix" actually stand for? Maybe that's part of the problem... we never established what it means. —CodeCat 22:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd support this proposal. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Polansky, protologisms meet the motto ‘all words in all languages.’ Unless you are going to propose that that slogan should not be taken seriously, in that case you may want it abolished. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI does say that words have to be attested and idiomatic, a protologism isn't attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Most of the world’s languages, living or dead, would meet none of these criteria, but I rarely see people get into trouble for adding terms from critically endangered languages or outright dead languages. Mister Brown certainly does not get into trouble for it. That a term does not exist in Google Groups or Google Books does not mean that it is never used. There exist Wikipedias that use thousands of ‘unattested’ words. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because words from endangered and dead languages are usually not made up, and can be shown to be attested. Usage of new and otherwise unattested words on Wikipedia is forbidden, and they must be replaced with more common synonymous words that can be attested and looked up by readers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's not true, at least for some Wikipedias. I think that all of Category:nv:Antelopes contains words unused outside of nv.wikipedia but Stephen insists on their (unattestable) validity. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Endangered/LDL/ancient language WPs are a special case. When describing concepts for which words do not exist, or have not been attested, they often engage in that type of activity. However, for any "major" language WP (e.g. with a history of literacy, > few million speakers, and an official status somewhere) using invented words instead of much more common words with the same meaning is not allowed. The criteria are not the same for all languages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mister Štambuk, you have got to be kidding. Languages like Pirahã and Gaulish are not exactly abundant in permanently recorded media, so I highly doubt that they can be attested. On a side note, would you consider the vocabulary of Proto‐Indo‐European to be ‘made up?’ --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Endangered and extinct languages are special cases. What applies to their wikiprojects doesn't necessarily apply to the rest. They are more of a revival effort, whereas wikiprojects of major languages are a documenting project. Vocabulary of Proto-Indo-European is not made up - it's reconstructed. See the article on comparative method. Bits and pieces of prehistoric vocabulary are reconstructed by comparison, giving us clues on ancient history (how the society was structured, contacts among peoples, religion and so on). What is important to understand is that those reconstructions are not necessarily words: for relatively recent languages (like Proto-Slavic, which is the "youngest" Indo-European branch and basically attested as Old Church Slavonic) we can with much certainty infer how the language sounded like. But the deeper you go in time, these reconstructions lose their certainty and simply become formulas to map various sound correspondences among attested languages. Think about them as algebraic formulas derived on the basis of attested words, with the rules of derivations sanctioned by respected authorities (consensus among historical linguists). For protologisms, there is no equivalent external authority apart from the creator of protologism, so it makes no sense to compare the two processes. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• It depends on what you consider a word. I do not consider the following inventions words: aabaology, aabaphobia, abigailianism, anachrospasm, arneticologism, atheognosis. For reference, google:aabaology, google:"aabaphobia", google:abigailianism, google:anachrospasm, google:arneticologism, google:"atheognosis". --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we use Wiktionary’s definition of a word or protologism? --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

We can.

Per Wiktionary relevant definition of word: "A distinct unit of language (sounds in speech or written letters) with a particular meaning, composed of one or more morphemes, and also of one or more phonemes that determine its sound pattern." The following are not units of language: aabaology, aabaphobia, abigailianism, anachrospasm, arneticologism, atheognosis. They are imaginary or unreal units of language. A plaster cat is not a cat, strictly speaking; an artificial lake (dam) is not a lake; a word that no one uses is not a word.

Per Wiktionary, a protologism is "A newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become common; ...". The definition does not exclude the possibility that the would-be word is attested; it merely implies that the word is not common. Thus, newly coined words and phrases can even be added to the mainspace as far as attested, and our attestation critera are fairly relaxed. As for Wiktionary's 2nd definition of the same sense: "...; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet acknowledged.": we do not require words to be acknowledged, merely attested, so again, some such things can be included in the mainspace. We only include things of which we have some knowledge, even imperfect knowledge, that they exist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know how you reached the conclusion that these words are not real; I don’t see how protologisms contradict the project’s definition. Do protologisms not have sounds? Do they not have meanings? Are you sure that they are never used? qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm is attestable and widely used, but I doubt that anybody can prove that it is a word: it has neither any meanings nor any pronunciations (as far as I know). --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain how you have reached the conclusion that the following are real? aabaology, aabaphobia, abigailianism, anachrospasm, arneticologism, atheognosis. I think they are not real because I find no evidence of their being real. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sigh…they have meanings, don’t they? It would be completely pointless to make a protologism that has no meaning. I think that we can both agree on that. Although I will admit, I’m not sure how these were defined since I never saw their definitions, and I am not familiar enough with the elements to guess what the words may mean. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It may be worth mentioning that the elements in the words may be attestable, which, I think, increases the likelihood that they are used. But feel free to disprove me. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain how you have reached the conclusion that aabaology, aabaphobia, abigailianism, anachrospasm, arneticologism, atheognosis are real (yes, the inventors have assigned meanings to them, but that does not make them real, does it)? Furthermore, can you explain what makes you think rotophobia (fear of rotating objects), which I have just invented on a whim, is real? Is lymphophobia (lymph -o- -phobia, "fear of the lymph fluid") real, and what makes you think so? Is tumbruduce ("to go very fast"), real and why (it has meaning, you see)? Finally, what makes you think anything just invented on the spot is real? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because they are derived from other terms or affixes that are real; they are based on existent, real words. No, that does not prove beyond all doubt that they exist, but they can still warrant an inclusion in an appendix, in my opinion. --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Parhaps we should create a separate namespace for fake words that nobody every uses, like FakeWord:. I'm annoyed that appendix namespace has become a general-purpose bin for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, perhaps it would be best if we define what ‘real’ means, because I have a feeling that our perceptions are out of synch. --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is tumbruduce ("to go very fast"), real and why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It’d be pretty easy to say, ‘well, it exists right in front of you,’ but that would be too meagre. I’m rather tired right now, but I’ll try to put this as logically as I can:
It is based off of real terms,
Those terms are real because they are used, in turn because they have meanings,
The invention utilizes those meanings of the terms together,
Because it has a meaning, it is used,
If it is used, it is real.

I don’t know if that helps…if your definition of real is ‘used at least three times in Google Book or Google Groups,’ then I don’t need to continue arguing (which would be good because I hate arguing). --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do I understand correctly that you say that tumbruduce ("to go very fast") is real?

What are the terms off which "tumbruduce" is based? What are the meanings of these terms and how are the meanings combined to produce the meaning of "tumbruduce" ("to go very fast")? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’m not trying to say that all protologisms have a basis, but I think that it is safe to say that most do. As for tumbrudence, I am guessing that it is inspired from the word turbulence, but I have no proof. Can we stop now? --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The bottom line is, you can’t be absolutely certain. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was talking of "tumbruduce", not "tumbrudence".

To help me understand: do you think that damareysha ("a cat that has broken a vase") is a real English word? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, what video games do you play? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is damareysha ("a cat that has broken a vase") suitable for inclusion in the list of protologisms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know how you made that word, so it’s less likely that it was ever used, and the narrow and highly specific meaning also makes it less likely. If you really need a binary answer, then yes, I think that it is acceptable to include, even if it is a stupid word. I think that the list should serve to make editors aware that these terms are never common. Now let’s get back on topic: do you have any handheld games? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I made damareysha ("a cat that has broken a vase") so as to be entirely arbitrary and morphologically intransparent.

Am I right that you want all additions made to the list of protologisms kept there forever, as no criterion, whether lack of web hits or implausibility, could ever lead to their exclusion? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’m not 100% certain about this, but if you read the Bible closely, you will find a passage that confirms that I did 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. You may want to record that, print hundreds of copies, and paste them everywhere in your neighborhood. --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you want all additions made to the list of protologisms kept there forever, or do you not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

As amusing as all this is, it's totally irrelevant, it's really just discussion for fun. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

One may think that the existence of the list of protologisms reduces entry of protologisms in the mainspace. I don't think so. For one thing, protologisms are being constantly added to the mainspace, regardless of the existence of the list. The counterargument would be that without the list the rate could be even higher. Then for another thing, I find it implausible that the anons who enter protologisms ever learn about the existence of the list of protologisms in the first place. You can get a glimpse at how many editors edited the list in the last year from here; compare that with the rate of new protologism entry in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the way to solve this is to generate tens of thousands of protologisms with some computer program and render that page uneditable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some data: I have looked at Deletion log to see how many pages were deleted in 2013 for their being "Creative invention or protologism" as per deletion summary. I found 451 items: phunk, pretell, texident, WHT, Mass trashing, D.M.G.T, sucklessful, zytible, prime resi, zyt, naxelon, singulatitarian, agromagnet, pehist, Beboe, Yokamo, Yokamo, alomo, methnic, Puncake, trunny, plurgal, success has many fathers, failure is a father of none, metabolismics, stignificance, twangsta, moresterestests, Arkham Effect, rednexican, inkspiration, Atheochristian, Lyled, haybug, frabis, evilution, placification, taylor swift, hop in my pocket, Napolesthic, Pinkous, petasatusphobia, puncake, surreptition, Suntry, simmlered, blindie, hoovin, gonkch, flarfidur, dutch mudslide, (log action removed), Beltboob, self high five, kubazillions, Confr, tangalong, waremaker, Nkt!, innovation literacy, Zambranaing, Alao, internet saturation, challabing, linguicity, thritzy, zoom room, Antidisanthropomorphizationism, leastly, abnosome, abnosome, napptural, suprondity, suprondity, truckwit, amor ab regina, overspace, securocracy, proxxon, vglog, Hackerer, Early Futurity, Preterodoxy, Sartalics, Searianist, Searianist, flossynossyhilipilification, bubbie, skinny love, epossible, mompinion, eat my corn, non-verbal leak, bawkurt, petist, celeritas moment, Mathese, crowdish, debargus, mworking, Ictainment, ahaak, unwrapped children, MAMAWYG, technidigm, arianator, enemy image, absurdeous, eatshitanddie, go me, Chief Earthling, double beat, truth to power, keihm, laptop hobo, beigeocracy, aylard, Sleazestep, strategic communion, Kan'on Bosatsu, jackipotihuntified, Brethergy, awks, tuna neck, Bagup, rueuhy, hydroponology, flaggot, nasty nade, nifting, etonarian, etarian, S.O.D, Elvyana, mungaby, jelling jing, Bapalism, crawcourable, All chairs down, smart mickie, igm, -ception, kiwaho, Titeedb, analexipathy, alexipathy, oosel, motorcicle pickle, dumpster dove, Tulipsarian, phawovhi, phlong, phlong, Abiendo, harracious, herocious, lesbaret, fustomer, suckshut, maquilatropolis, annivorcary, chapull, nom de crime, donutable offence, Cronut, Chicano standoff, ultracrepidarianism, melationship, octoped, IMEO, prince sexuality, remicant, remicant, spendipidus, electrovore, poroutable, wobblypop, organizum, eskimo spring, Derivism, norsicist, episstemology, buzulkuşu, bodaggit, arianator, cloud consciousness, four wheelering, Arpita, splendorious, negaholic, vythisphobia, weak-zausted, sochristicated, Rushcoaster, motique, incredamazingable, rivalic, ephebotype, politicious, aieoeanct, FiveBucker, left handed cigarette, Prostylic, prostylic, batophobia, ebin, rollertype, salad ballad, platyabdominalgia, bikling, dortal, sentegraph, avatin, bellicostic, possibility advocate, possibility advocate, nexusexuality, phoneographic, symmys, catshits, fetochiology, Hyper-Comma, trollibuss, jewean, poll marketing, vém, Waiselism, Bhigona, bechubbed, Crowdweaving, Darth Data, peemergency, WikiDenial, verdiot, beenitus, CrowdWeaving, diyt, Trickle Down Motorcycle Gifting, fervert, loler, hayara, hygiecracy, defragulazation, Server sunset, faithphobe, starlight girl, johncil effect, swnd, fatcha, Teply, Review Forum Optimization, entrepreneurial debt, govpreneur, phoeniges, instipreneurship, instipreneurial, instipreneur, dick-drool, jobulant, micropolitician, Geoffed, weepeem, outstall, longitudicalineal, neuroacceleration subliminals, neuroacceleration hypnosis, Navsoclock, vgood, Merp, Spam Shooting, Sidurism, organic search occupancy, ermahgerd, airborne ranger, Sphovii, sphoval, Swagnot, sick ink, academigasm, artectural, kyeotratb, Vonce, cockpunch, Reconomy, appledesiac, fliggin, ouph, mootery, corroday, apistevist, Coresynthesis, taijiya, 退治屋, 武器術, bukijutsu, todays competitive economy, pyrotechnical drawing, crisismapping, facebook loser, facebook loser, counterspin doctor, salvation kingdom, 祭宮, gml, Taxachusetts, boliwariańska, xtl, Scarfidian, dilbert, el grande epico, biasness, Kevin Landmesser, skills 90, megbasz, good oil, priactive, priaction, ninjistic, plagiarnym, pid day, pid time, Sequestrationingly, bikeporn, scrooble, lucrid, plez, physionomy, physionomist, physionomists, cake a nop log, get a nintendo, bangstry, jovity, Ignitra, boxered, untwettable, untweetable, shaclone, paranox, singletin, smart zombie, vigit, appy, vigit, quanj, weirsane, chicken-hole, doomaflotchet, Dobster, turphile, shitee, archistract, internetic, archistract, trinketize, Nerdfighter, internetic, Rosaconvertuer, exgod, Omnigion, equestration, fruigetable, 猢猻, encomotospiring, Wendolene, mitchified, sqeto, Effective Stylish Literate, Snydered, blizzricane, Mobihood, lantrify, bag architecture, Bag Architecture, acuesticks, Fonedraising, agg-o-graph, lantrify, kismesis, Put it with the Phone Book, tigellum, hathering, Emo horror, Gagbub, rurbanite, Edenology, bejujular, partnerized inventory management, memetome, 又旅, Twerkative, iper perithismosphobia, jewlogy, Piligrass, pozdar, conversation bomb, techno fofinho, Combat Diva, P Cafe, Jew Neck Sweater, yarn trick, omnication, Fort-Meade Fever, gusband, beautimous, beautimous, Pacdaddy, mobisite, x face, hermaphroquin, cogitality, 武士術, wanafucawi, bouosité, LGBTQAA2Z, ilysmiub, ilysm, 有角, seniornomics, nernerschelerp, wasphs, plummel, supradapt, anxietous, onmercial, heteropoeisis, eusynthesis, wikilogism, wikinym, Mel Bo, brainical, Guyet, HEALTHISTER, Afgeonization, same same, Huellogy, carbonist, carbonism, house paki, crungry, kuhd, jively, freemocking, Couvillon, Huckerism, intertwangled, coopify, Muno, bumtastic, huwman, Huckerism, gleep

By contrast, Appendix:List of protologisms/A-P contained 72 edits in 2013, from 21 user accounts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Appendix:List of protologisms by topic "reality show" terms — to be archived at Appendix talk:List of protologisms by topic
  • Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Appendix:List of protologisms by topic

— Keφr 20:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply