Talk:крапп

Orthographic borrowing?
@Fay Freak I don't understand how this is an orthographic borrowing from German. I appreciate that it uses, clearly influenced by German , but I'm not sure that amounts to being an orthographic borrowing (unlike, say, , which is also taken from German). Theknightwho (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently I imagined it in the complicated fashion that it was borrowed orally and literally by botanists and the like later separately, borrowing not necessarily being a point in time, though we use to think so for simplication and because the earliest point is the most requested information. If it was borrowed from Persian and then the spelling from German you would have no problem. Fay Freak (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now looked upon the entries in Category:Orthographic borrowings by language and the glossary entry . I must say the strict usage there is novel to me, and when I added a few of the first of the still few orthographic borrowings it referred to any orthographic peculiarity that can be explained by a foreign orthography. Another example was  where the spelling is secondary to an earlier one. The Chinese→Japanese example in the glossary would only be spelling pronunciation, according to my dictionarist intuition. Such entries seem just nonsensical, like  – why would it be specified as orthographic borrowing, why would it have to change its spelling when borrowed? Fay Freak (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fay Freak Yeah, I agree that trying to apply the concept to western scripts results in some really weird outcomes. Clearly and, as well as , have all been influenced by the spelling of the source language, but I think there's an extra level of complication when the two languages usually use different scripts, especially when some terms are transliterated (крапп) and some aren't (c-moll). Theknightwho (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming here “alphabetic scripts”. The same issue in which is not even a borrowed word and differs from the  example in that what was borrowed we now imagine as a different script, but I realize these are only Unicode abstractions: the real thing happened in a pre-form of the present Arabic script somewhere between it and . So it is demonstrably fallacious to suspect that we should derive additional templates or terminology from such a complication. The borrowed lexemes, , ,  had wild edit histories for their old spellings as well, owing to some confusion, where somebody wanted to introduce the term of “logogram” which I would only use for heterograms, but are describable in the same fashion, so my original estimation holds true that “orthographic borrowings” are a transscriptural concept (yes, I just had to make that word up in this meaning) of orthographic peculiarities being borrowed, i.e. analogously applied in another language’s writing, however not the whole spelling irrespective of phonetic representation separately from the word itself, then only heterogram. We should not mix up the levels of the whole term or the spelling being borrowed.
 * But the spelling may always pass language barriers by some conversion rule between scripts, like Russian ⟨пп⟩ ←→ German ⟨pp⟩. Imagine the case when a (cuneiform) sign in one language only occurs in one or more certain heterograms: they kind of borrow “script variants” here too, possibly, I don’t want to imagine the font issues if we display Unicode codepoints differently depending on whether the embedding language is Akkadian, Hittite, or Hurrian and then the writing style has to switch from one to an otherish one.
 * The template  has no place by my reckoning. The →  example needs a better term than “orthographic borrowing”, which comes out polysemic if not abused; it appears to me the like case as, of borrowing the spelling and then, even if the temporal distance only be a logical second, applying a spelling pronunciation, which is just clumsily expressed, although I now get the idea that it is an “orthographic borrowing” because it was only borrowed in written language to written language and then pronounced: in my understanding from when the template was created it was that the orthography was borrowed and we do not say anything about the origin of the lexeme per se, which of course presupposes its abstract conceptualization separately from writing (graphemes) and pronunciation (phonemes), that apparently contravenes the naive empiricist modus operandi of humans distinguished by either visual memory or auditory memory by which they structure their thought processes, some neurotypes have testified to me this month.
 * (This is beside the issue with names behaving unlike common nouns and not being “borrowed” like them discussed at length through many threads which we are not going to solve just this decade.) Fay Freak (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)