Talk:Sportlerherz

Sportlerherz
Let's open up the old can of worms by discussing this German compound word. It really means nothing else than "athlete's heart". In the same way you can construct words like Frauenherz, Männerherz, Bäckerherz, Mechanikerherz, and so on. There'd be literally no limit. -- Liliana • 19:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete --WikiTiki89 20:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Take it to RFV. If it can be attested, then keep, because it's a single word. We have never required compounds to be idiomatic. —Angr 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you applying the same paradigm to Chinese too? -- Liliana • 22:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course; why not? Incidentally, looking through, it seems the term does not just mean "any athlete's heart" but a specific cardiological condition in which the walls of the heart are thickened. —Angr 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, the definition is wrong. It should be "athlete's heart" all in one link and we should create that English entry because it seems to exist. Wikipedia's page on it is titled . --WikiTiki89 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote only applies for the current definition (“athlete's heart”). — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. German requires special consideration. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where in WT:CFI does it say that? All I see there is, "Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts. The reason is that the parts often have several possible senses, but the compound is often restricted to only some combinations of them." I don't see it say "except in German" or "except for entries created by Sae1962" anywhere. —Angr 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It does say “generally idiomatic”, not “always idiomatic” though. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See also: Beer_parlour -- Liliana • 22:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. German is different from Chinese: German is written with spaces between its words (and there's no space here), Chinese is usually not. This has been discussed over and over again, e.g. Beer parlour archive/2011/February. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. German is in no way special. All Germanic languages form such compounds, and Proto-Indo-European probably did too so there are many languages with compounds like this. 23:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some languages have a strange habit of forming ridiculous compounds. I think someone had pointed out an anomaly with German regarding long S when it appears as the first letter in a component word, indicating that there is still some notion of word division, even without any spaces or hyphens. (I wish I could remember the exact argument. Something to do with capitalization?) DAVilla 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ƿidsiþ 10:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, with [[athlete's heart]] as translation. -- Curious (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I really don't see the SOPness of this one, any more than athlete's foot is athlete + foot. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I saw it written as a word with spaces between it and I didn't know what it meant I'd expect to be able to look it up in (any) dictionary to get a definition. And it's not as if Wiktionary is a paper dictionary. For the record, Chinese is never written with spaces, but word divisions are a lot easier to work out than you might imagine. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. See e.g. Talk:Zirkusschule, from which I quote myself: 'If we ever get CFI for German that excludes some closed compounds (spelled without spaces), then I think that closed compounds with low number of stems still should be kept. "Zirkusschule" has two stems, like "Kopfschmerz".' --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You do make a good point. If we do need to limit compounds, limiting them through the amount of stems is a good way of doing it. 19:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Kept. DAVilla 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Afternote: this passed only because the original definition was totally wrong and a new, idiomatic sense has been added since. It shall not serve as a precedent case for German terms. -- Liliana • 05:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)