Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Idiomatic
I propose we stop using the terms "idiomatic" and "non-idiomatic" and replace them with "non-SOP" and "SOP" (perhaps with the acronym spelled out in full). --WikiTiki89 18:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- You probably want to edit more from WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. It uses words like "unidiomatic" repeatedly, and introduces the concept of SOP by saying: "Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP)." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean just in this vote, I mean that this vote inspired me to propose this. --WikiTiki89 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Should we carry on with this vote as-is and vote for removing "idiomatic" later, or should this vote be edited somehow to avoid using "idiomatic"? I'm still thinking if the current wording can be improved. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to be an interesting and worthwhile idea, but can be executed as a separate proposal. It would solve the problem that Common:idiomatic.semantics <> CFI:idiomatic.semantics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
"Single words"
I think this change is okay (actually desirable) for English. Are there going to be any issues with interpreting "word" for other languages, e.g. where spaces are not used (Thai, Chinese)? Equinox ◑ 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- It also might be silly for e.g. German and Finnish where you can create all kinds of silly long words by chaining things together, in a way that English mostly doesn't. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- But those are still words according to those language's traditions, even if they aren't always in monolingual dictionaries (you can tell because it's not just chaining together, but instead must obey certain rules). Relying on the word "word" is pretty good for issues that concern all languages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see no difference between kolenmijn and coal mine, yet one is a word and the other an idiomatic phrase? Things like this make me feel the term "word" is too ambiguous and vague to be used in an important document like CFI. —CodeCat 18:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I believe "word" is the best we've got at the moment. Isn't it? Even if different languages have different perspectives on what constitutes a word, this does not seem to contradict the fact that we accept single words, whatever they are. Yes, it appears that kolenmijn is a word and coal mine is a phrase. They mean the same thing, but they are formed through different means. I feel it's like how puppy is a single word and young dog is a phrase. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
About Category:English idioms
The vote was not my idea, I just created it. With the current wording, it says: "Each single word is considered to be idiomatic." Would it imply somehow that all single words should be members of Category:English idioms too? I know this would be useless, and I don't want to add single words in the category. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- That would make the category totally worthless, so clearly no. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is partly my reasoning for #Idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 14:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
For the record, the proposed wording of this vote is mine. I proposed it at Renards talk page. There, I also proposed something that could be even better, or not:
Current:
- This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic.
Proposed replacement:
- This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.
As anyone likes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I like it. Shall we change the vote so it would be about this instead? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe wait for one more like before you change the vote? User:Wikitiki89, User:Equinox, User:Renard Migrant or User:Metaknowledge? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. I changed the text as per this discussion. I postponed the start of the vote by +7 days. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe wait for one more like before you change the vote? User:Wikitiki89, User:Equinox, User:Renard Migrant or User:Metaknowledge? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
