Talk:испански

RFV discussion: November 2013–June 2014
Russian. Tagged with this reason: non-existent, the correct form is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * --WikiTiki89 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Convinced. I will de-tag and add usage notes. It seems it's only used to avoid repetition of prefix "по-". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that the only circumstance it's used in — ellipsis, where the prefix is present just two words earlier? I'm not convinced that proves "испански" to be a word. (Even if we treat it as one, we might make use of or something like it.) Consider that searches like  and  don't suggest that "civil" is a noun meaning "civil rights" or that "Herren" means "men's clothing". - -sche (discuss) 23:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It depends on how you analyze it. I've always thought of it as being its own adverb that requires the preposition/prefix/whatever-you-wanna-call-it.


 * I couldn't find such adverbs without the prefix "по-" in any dictionary. Yes, they are only used when the prefix was used earlier but repeating the prefix is quite common as well: по-русски, по-английски, по-немецки, etc. So, the formatting of such forms is still a question mark. No matter how you analyse it, adverbs are not formed in Russian by simply adding "-ски". It is a special case of ellipsis. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t say that it is about adding "-ски" to form adverbs, but changing "-ский" to "-ски" (cf. политически, психологически, идеологически, систематически, практически, теоретически, экологически, технологически, категорически, тематически, лингвистически). —Stephen (Talk) 09:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work for all types of adverbs, though, e.g. you can't simply remove "по-" from adverbs like по-дружески, по-человечески, по-господски, по-русски, по-английски OR from по-военному, по-деловому, по-новому and get a valid adverb. What -sche has described fits this situation but I don't know how to format it yet. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * re google search: Please notice that all google hits (with a single exception) are at least century old. They are from the times when "по-" could have been written without hyphen. The only modern ref may be attributed to author's stylistic trick. Therefore I would suggest to keep the entry with the mark "archaic" and usage restricted to enumerative ellipsis. Altenmann (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As an alternative to my suggestion of having an only used in-type template, what about a form of template that would display "ellipsis of"? - -sche (discuss) 22:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate your suggestion, please? This case (and RFD should be closed somehow. As mentioned/explained earlier, the form "испански" (or any other language name) is only used in ellipsis in Russian to avoid repeating "по-", if it was used just before. How is handled for German, if it is?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to use Template:only used in, like [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&diff=27059764&oldid=27059761 this]. - -sche (discuss) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Case closed. No need to provide citations, IMO. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2013–June 2014
Non-existent in Russian, the correct adverbial form is --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in RFD; existence is tested in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which RFV? It's Bulgarian, not Russian. The Russian adjective is, adverbial is  ,  "испански" means nothing. This RFD is for the Russian, not Bulgarian term. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't bother RFVing as this is easily attestable in forms such as "по-французски и испански". --WikiTiki89 15:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have put it to WT:RFV after Anatoli tagged it with RFV in the mainspace. If you two agree that there is nothing to attest, the RFV can be withdrawn, but then please post there to that effect. Or even better, you can provide attestation in испански or Citations:испански. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Convinced by Wikitiki89's example. I never thought about it. So, the entry needs reformatting and usage notes. It only happens to avoid repetition of the prefix. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: I commented further on WT:RFV. Even if it's used, it's in ellipsis, not sure how this should be formatted, if the entry is kept. Is it an RFD or RFV case? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Detagged; let's handle this via RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RVF case closed, so is this one. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)