Talk:пчелояд

I think if пчелояд has come to Russian from Bulgarian then that belongs in Etymology section. If it still doesn't "feel like" a Russian word for example how "tabula rasa" is used in English but still "feels foreign", then that also needs to be indicated. The OED uses a special symbol to mark such words. On Wiktionary we have discussed the topic briefly and have used italics to mark such words in the headword section and when mentioned in other articles. I would make a change here now but I can't tell from the current wording of the article which of the two would be appropriate. Discussion very welcome here or in the Beer parlour. &mdash; Hippietrail 19:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It feels like a Russian word, but with a different meaning. Яд means "eater" in Bulgarian, but in Russian it means "poison" or "venom". I wouldn’t say that it’s naturalized at all, but it doesn’t feel foreign either. I don’t think many people would understand it correctly unless they happened to know some Bulgarian. I know that it has been used by Russians in Russian text to some small extent, but I hesitate to label it even a loanword. I’d say it’s simply a foreign word that has the outward appearance of being Russian, causing some people to use it when they really shouldn’t. I don’t think it merits an etymology section under "Russian"...it just needs a brief note and link to the correct Russian, which is пчелоед. In fact, if Bulgarian had noun declensions, I would only including Russian in the Translation section...but since Bulgarian doesn’t decline its nouns, it seems necessary to include a separate (but minimal) Russian section on this page. &mdash;Stephen 08:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually be "feels like" I meant "naturalised" but I couldn't think of the correct word when I started writing. So yeah if it's not naturalised we should treat it the same way we treat "tete-a-tete" OR "ad infinitum" as English entries. All entries on Wiktionary merit an Etymology section, even if it's just the name of the originating language. Remember that in the future it will be possible to only see one entry at a time even if other languages share the same spelling. We should write articles as if that were already the case rather than expect users to sift through articles in languages they might not know or care about. If a word is borrowed from one language into another then it is a loanword. How much use it gets there is a separate issue. The issue is only whether it has been naturalised or not. Wiktionary is not paper so we shouldn't worry about trying to minimize content. (This is different to how I feel personally about only including lexical items, which others use the "not paper" argument to counter). &mdash; Hippietrail 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don’t think this is like "tete-a-tete" OR "ad infinitum"...I’d say it’s more like "Bugstand", which looks like an English word and has probably been used but misunderstood by some American or British soldiers stationed in Germany, but which is actually aviation German for "forward gun position". I’ve heard Americans in Germany use Mietwagen for hearse or butcher’s delivery van, but actually it’s just a rental car. I’ll add the etymology section that you want, but I feel foolish doing it. When the day comes that only a single language appears on a page, I think it would be more appropriate for пчелоядами to simply redirect to пчелоед. &mdash;Stephen 08:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I understand better now. I can't think of any examples in written English but I've certainly heard many German people use "Handy" as though it's an English word. But in their case they're making a mistake which doesn't belong in an English dictionary. This example with Russian seems to be different. You wouldn't regard the use of this word in Russian text a mistake would you, or do you think it's likely such texts are written by Bulgarian speakers who don't know the true Russian word? If we can come up with some other examples in other languages we might make a Beer parlour topic. &mdash; Hippietrail 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not exactly a mistake, but to a certain extent, yes. I don’t consider it a Russian word. However, it looks and feels like a Russian word, and calling a tropical bird that kills and eats bees "bee-poison" actually makes sense. For that reason, I think that some Russians will think it’s Russian and use it, even though they should be using the true Russian пчелоед, or bee-eater. And this means that, even though it’s not Russian, something has to be done to show the correct meaning to anyone (Russian native or student of Russian). But by putting a full-fledged page up, it strikes me as an improper recognition of the word as Russian and something that acts to adulterate their language...almost like creating a protologism. Russian is much more conservative than English, and I don’t wish to affect the language, only to describe it.
 * Bee-eater/пчелоед reminds me of another Russian word, Samoyed (самоед). It’s a name that a Uralic people of Siberia uses to refer to themselves. The problem is that it actually looks and sounds like a native Russian word, meaning "Self-eater"...this coincidence has led to some Russian misapprehensions about the customs and diet of that reindeer-herding people. To remedy the problem, the Russians have chosen to use a different Samoyedic word, ненец (nénets), which works because it doesn’t look Russian. &mdash;Stephen 15:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)