Talk:banc

English RFV
I deleted this once, but it's back: I think "Banc" is only used as a component of several proper nouns, so I don't think it fits our CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) banc, marketing slang (chiefly in USA) for the non-banking arms of a financial conglomerate that has "Bank" in its common name. For instance, if the original company was known as Bank of Manhattan, then its insurance business might be known as "Banc of Manhattan Insurance". It is a term of art, a meaningless word, that is meant to suggest the safety and soundness of a bank, without any actual representation of safety or soundness so that they are free to offer risky products without running afoul of false advertising laws.

I re-added 'banc' and added references from Banc of America and a footnote by a USC professor who delineates the distinction between the two. While "Banc" may only be seen as part of many proper nouns, it deserves a distinction as it is not a synonym of its homophone. While it is believed by many--if not most--in the US that 'bank' and 'banc' are synonymous, it is worth noting that one implies certain legal distinctions whereas the other does not. It is true that 'banc' is rarely, if ever, seen divorced from a proper name; however, it is a commonly used component of many proper names and not a proper name itself, therefore it is worthy of an entry. Anonymous 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems to me that a "component of a proper noun" is more equivalent to a "term" or a "word" than it is to the "proper name" that is prohibited by the CFI. Furthermore the general rule of the CFI is "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means" and when I read "banc" in "Banc of America" I specifically want to know what it means independently of what "Banc of America" means.

Here's another instance of the word's use in a reference to the Texas Finance Code [].--Struthious Bandersnatch 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, at best, a neologism promoted by a team of lawyers arguing a specific case regarding the use of a misspelling by a marketing department. The Texas reference is specifically about the phonetic similiarity of the intentional marketing misspelling(s).  The professor described the same gimic in slightly different terms.  This should be moved to our list of made up terms.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it was a word used in one instance by a single team of lawyers, I would agree with you, Connel. However its use is so widespread that there are hundreds of companies using it in their name, all for the same purpose described in the article, and the word has actually been codified into Texas law.  This is a misspelling for certain but a very established misspelling that is intentionally used, not accidentally.  Its use has joint legal and marketing purposes, which is what the Texas law is recognizing.  That goes far beyond the definition of protologism, "A newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become accepted into the language", and I hope that you can concede that this circumstance doesn't at all fit with those of the other words on the List of Protologisms.  As I said before, someone coming across this word is going to wonder "Why does it say 'banc' instead of 'bank'?" and the answer is more complex than "because they misspelled it" or "it's just a name", hence this article is needed.


 * By the way, I am not the individual who created this entry, though I agree with him. He invited me to take a look and render my opinion.--Struthious Bandersnatch 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Old English RFV
A few dictionaries of Old English mention that other dictionaries of Old English included this term (with the meanings "bench" and "embankment" or similar), but no Anglo-Saxon era uses or mentions survive. The Old English section was therefore removed from the entry as RFV-failed. RFV discussion to be archived here soon. - -sche (discuss) 07:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2012
"A meaningless word"; "risky products". Needs trimming for conciseness, and needs to be made neutral instead of biased. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a run at it. I did not yet touch the references. Please inspect. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–October 2012
I found one source that said this was not attested in any Old English texts. I am also curious about its etymology because the more usual descendant of this Germanic word was (from which ). The lack of palatalisation is suspicious. 11:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember too that palatisation was not a universal feature in all OE dialects: it was a feature of primarily Southern OE dialects (West Saxon); those in the North (Anglian) usually did not palatise, or did so to a much lesser extent (cf OE ic > SouthernME ich, but NorthernME ik; OE finc > English finch but Scots phink) Leasnam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Bosworth & Toller, it appears glossed as tumulus in Somner's 1659 Old English–Latin dictionary. If that's the only place it occurs, that's just a mention, not a use, and the word can't be verified. Clark Hall doesn't include it, but Clark Hall doesn't attempt to be unabridged. —Angr 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A slightly different form, OE, more closely depicts PGmc *bankô, *bankōn. I wonder too if the word (if it exists) might have been a borrowing. Leasnam (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Due to a change in our CFI, the one mention of this could be sufficient for inclusion. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What was Somner's evidence? Did he also have benc? DCDuring TALK 22:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I only have access to Bosworth & Toller, not to Sumner. —Angr 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can trust a 1659 dictionary anyway. Somner didn't speak Old English or have access to any native speakers any more than we do. So how did he learn of the word? Was it attested in texts that he had available, but have been lost to us since? 22:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that we have a durably archived mention. If we say B&T is durably archived, we are left with a mention of mention. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that even a durably archived mention is enough. The CFI says, "For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements", and one of the "below requirements" is "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". Is there a community of editors for Old English, and do they maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention, and is B&T on that list? The fact that B&T only list another dictionary as their source shouldn't actually matter; if B&T hadn't given a source for the word at all, we would still accept their entry as a mention, wouldn't we? So we shouldn't "punish" them for giving their source. —Angr 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if we accepted only mentions from people who might have actually heard it from a native speaker. If it's listed in a dictionary that just begs the question "where did they find it?". 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed, given the absence of consensus to consider the mention-of-a-mention as valid verification of the term. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)