Talk:Getränkeeinzelhändlerin

RFV discussion: August–December 2021
protologism.


 * No. Here is another example for a rarely used term. Getränkefachhändlerin is near-synonymous with Getränkeeinzelhändlerin.
 * HAZ 20.08.2015 : "Viele Biersorten würde der Norddeutsche, der laut der Getränkefachhändlerin eher auf helle Biere fixiert ist, wohl normalerweise nicht ..." -- Die "Pro Bier-Kiste" wird zum "Getränkekult".


 * Terms like Getränkeeinzelhändlerin can't be a protologism because the German language allows speakers to form a female equivalent to every single existing male form of occupations, in this case Getränkeeinzelhändler.


 * The reason you won't find examples on the internet is due to the fact that the male form can be used for unspecified sex as well. Until now, unspecified sex remains the preferred form. Thus, words like Getränkeeinzelhändlerin might be rarely used, especially in written form, but they are valid terms.--79.194.173.50 13:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * see WT:CFI: 3 durably archived uses of are needed.
 * Thanks for informing me about this. The rule was unknown to me. Yet I think, this entry shouldn't be deleted, even if the internet doesn't provide sufficient examples, due to the reasons I mentioned above. You don't need any proof for something that is obvious. It is a simple rule of the German language that you can form of almost any male occupational term a female equivalent by adding the suffix -in. But if the entry will be deleted anyway, I was at least able to show that the given rationale for the deletion (protologism) was not correct, since Getränkeeinzelhändlerin is not a newly coined word.--2003:CF:3F0C:8790:39:5E1E:1322:F4C8 19:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The obviousness of a suffixed form is currently not an argument for deletion (or else we should delete the entry as obviously being ). We have entries for, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  and . The majority feeling seems to be that the three-attestations rule is not meant to be applied to inflectional forms, so that we do not need to specifically attest the form . It is unclear whether the three-attestations rule should be applied to other regular and predictable suffixed forms (such as ) of attested lemmas (such as ).  --Lambiam 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * (🇰🇲, a certain cap) or (, cp. ) are also simple formations - yet 3 cites are needed to show the terms' existence. BTW:  is a different word and doesn't say anything about  and its existence. Also,  is very rare and could fail RFV as well. BTW 2:, ,  aren't necessarily female (though of course grammatically feminine) while e.g.  isn't necessarily male or of unspecified sex. --02:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. Ultimateria (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)