Talk:Jhesu Christ

Jhesu Christ
Nominating the following (all created by me, in some cases I'm the only author other than bots). Reason: names of specific individuals, interesting as they are, in linguistic terms, they're sum of parts. NB haven't nominated Jhesu or Jhesucrist as these are one word. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Proper names are hardly ever semantic sum of parts. The meaning of a proper name--the set of objects to which the proper name refers--cannot usually be derived from the meaning of the constituent words of the proper name. --Dan Polansky 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment I found very enlightening by Lmaltier was roughly "it may not be obvious from Winston + Churchill that Winston Churchill was British Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean Winston Churchill should be included in a dictionary". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The meaning of Winston Churchill is Any person with Winston as his first name and Churchill as his surname. Anything else is encyclopedic. But there is no reason to include it in a language dictionary, because it's only two words put together by WInston Churchill's parents. No linguistic information can be provided here, any useful linguistic information should be at Winston or Churchill. Lmaltier 15:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

fiz Marie
Note: fil sainte Marie is also attested as a synonym. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

roi Artur

 * Delete Jhesu Christ, Carles li magnes, Jehan Baptiste, roy Artur, and roi Artur. (Not sure about fiz Marie.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we don't say Son of Mary in English, the closest equivalent to fiz Marie would be Son of God. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, kinda. Son of God has a clear referent as the sum of its parts: it's, well, the son of one's god. Or a son of one of one's gods — but for most English speakers, there's at most one. So it's arguable that the phrase Son of God doesn't mean Jesus, but, rather, means merely what its parts say, and the fact that it refers to Jesus then follows. (That'd make it SOP.) OTOH, I doubt that that logic would apply to fiz Marie — not that I know any Old French — since fiz Marie probably (I'm guessing here) could, in theory, be used to refer to any son of any Marie: if it referred to Jesus specifically and not some other son of a Marie even where such a referent would not be implied by context, then that would seem to mean it's idiomatic. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all encyclopedic content of proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep them all. Any by the way, I don't consider roi Artur or Jhesu Christ to be a full name. Charles Darwin is first plus last, but this is more comparable to King Tut (geez, I thought we kept that one). Carles li magnes doesn't look like a full name either, and if and when we allow full names by some criterion, I'm sure Jehan Baptiste would meet it. DAVilla 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you (DAvilla, or Lmaltier, or anyone) explain the logic of keeping roi Artur and roy Artur? Do you also advocate keeping Prince [name] and King [name] and Queen [name] and Princess [name] and, heck, Lord [name], etc., for every single prince, king, etc.? You consider them idiomatic? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep them all. I agree with Davilla. There is no reason to include full names (defined as first name + surname), but nicknames or names explicitly designed for the person should be included, bacause it's possible and useful to provide linguistic data about them. Lmaltier 15:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Carles li magnes because it is relevant to its descendant, Charlemagne.

No consensus, striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)