Talk:&

&
¶ Request for deletion: redundant English and French senses. --Pilcrow 15:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is the conjunction sense translingual though? The symbol is. There's an argument for removing the translingual definition 'and' thus making this not redundant. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ¶ Well, the word ‘and’ itself may not be, but the basic meaning (something that connects other subjects or objects) most likely is. Possibly relevant mention: I think this symbol is pretty much excluded to languages that use a Roman alphabet. --Pilcrow 07:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There could be differences. Is &c a derived term in English only? Is the ampersand used in Arabic? DAVilla 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus. --Pilcrow 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

&
Rfd-sense: French. Redundant to Translingual. We also have English, but that one's kept only for the translation table. -- Liliana • 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: English speakers and French speakers pronounce it differently. There must be language-specific information somewhere. You might be interested in the French version. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize that means there will potentially be a section for tens, scores or hundreds of languages there? ir, in, i, y, e, et, şi, ve, und, en, og, och, uhh I guess those are the only ones I can think of offhand. Lol. But some of those are for multiple languages. —  [Ric Laurent] — 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention other punctuation and symbols, like ,. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to read a comma; comma is just a name of the symbol. I’m not talking about ampersand but and written as &amp;. If it is pronounced differently in dozens of languages, just list them. That’s a purpose of dictionary. How do you know Japanese pronounce it アンド ando (transcription of and) and not と to (translation of and) without an entry? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If we're not supposed to read a symbol, why are we supposed to pronounce it? Would you support multi-language entries for ☺ that explain how to pronounce the localised version of "smiley face"? Equinox ◑ 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You just skip commas and smileys when you read, so they are irrelevant here. The key is that you actually pronounce &amp; as and in English. Cookies &amp; cream is read cookies and cream in English; cookies &amp; crème is read cookies et crème in French; クッキー&クリーム is read クッキーアンドクリーム in Japanese. If you don’t explain it in the article of &amp;, where do you explain it? You can’t do it in the translation section of and because they don’t always match. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, アンド is redlinked: should it be? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, would we need definitions for + and - for every language because they have different pronunciations? I hope not! -- Liliana • 18:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * & is a word in written language. + and -, less so.--Prosfilaes 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? Sorry, but I don't really get your logic. They're entirely comparable. -- Liliana • 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * + and - aren't really used in running language. & is. In any case, do we need definitions of amor for every language because it has different conjugations? well, yes.--Prosfilaes 07:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a horrible example. I haven't seen & inflect in any language out there. You could compare it to some of our translingual Latin phrases like de facto, someone whose mother language does not have an /f/ sound (hello Arabs, or Indians for that matter) will certainly pronounce the phrase differently. -- Liliana • 12:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a translingual Latin phrase; it's listed as English and French. It had six different pronunciations for English, none of which I suspect match the pronunciation vowel-wise for just about any other language in the world, so making it translingual would still leave us with an endless string of pronunciations separated by language.--Prosfilaes 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an example:
 * I answerd: we impose on one another, & it is but lost time to converse with you whose works are only Analytics. (William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 1793)
 * As you know, use of & between phrases is not common today. It shows somewhat stronger combination of the two than and. You must explain it in the English section. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if we're keeping it for pronunciation, then it should have pronunciation in there somewhere. But the basic point, that it has a pronunciation that's distinct for each language I take.--Prosfilaes 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either ===Pronunciation=== * English: **  * French:  **  or ===Pronunciation=== * English: as and: * French: as et: . (I prefer the latter.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Ruakh makes good points, below. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why changing principles? I had the same idea for scientific names in biology (e.g. Canis). But I now realize that I was wrong. There is not only the prononciation to be provided, but also citations, possibly the gender, possibly derived words, etc. We must have simple principles, and apply them consistently. Lmaltier 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lmaltier. To his list, I'd add usage notes. In some languages and time periods, the ampersand has been relatively formal; in others, relatively informal. In some languages, it might be considered correct to replace an ampersand with a word such as and; in other languages, there might be a distinction. And of course, in some languages the ampersand simply might not be used — or might be used in a completely different way. (אמפרסנד says that the marshalít language uses the ampersand as a letter; Marshallese orthography doesn't support this claim, but it's plausible that it's true of a different language.) It's unfortunate that, as Ric points out, there will be hundreds of entries at [[&]] by the time the English Wiktionary is complete, but that's just the way it is. —Ruakh TALK 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per TAKASUGI Shinji and Ruakh. - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)