Talk:contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality

Joyce's invented words
Should we make entries for all of Joyce's invented words? There must be tens of thousands. I don't know if we can say that they're English words, as he based many of his words on many different languages from around the globe. 24.29.228.33 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If Joyce's works are deemed "well-known works", then our attestation rules require only a single occurrence in one such work to qualify something like this for inclusion. Normal attestation requires three independent citations. Thus any printing error from any edition of Shakespeare might be able to make it. Words used once in Modern English by Nabakov, Tolkein, Joyce, or Rawlings and not previously except in Old or Middle English could and do often qualify. In other words, the problem lies not in enforcement of policy, but in the policies themselves. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring words may leave us a lesser dictionary than we can be. There is technically nothing barring entries for all of Joyce's words, and as a limitless dictionary not barred by page numbers, we can certainly accommodate them. It is doubtful one would take it upon one's self to complete a task, but they are certainly welcome, and good entries should not be hindered. Finally, his words are certainly English. He writes in the English language with coined English words. sewnmouthsecret 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And where do we draw lines in terms of authors' nods, printers' errors, scannos, and "well-known"-itude? The three-cites rule dramatically reduces the need for drawing such lines, directing effort instead to collecting attestation examples, which are sometimes good usage examples. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree those policies can use revisiting. Unfortunately, many terms have only one cite. We visit terms on a case-by-case basis now anyway, and that usually weeds out the cruft. If this term is a bother, I can drum up 3 cites no problem. sewnmouthsecret 18:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition should be usage note
Here's something I just noticed - the definition provided for this word (am not going to type it out) as I write this is more of a usage note than a definition - it says: [A nonce word in James Joyce's Ulysses]. I have not read the book so don't know what the word actually does mean - so 2 questions: 1) does anyone know (or can deduce) what this word means, to provide a better definition for it, and 2) should the current definition be redefined as a usage note?


 * Some words are hard to define or are "speech acts" or "conversational directive". In many dictionaries they only get a "non-gloss definition", which is a lot like a usage note, as you correctly observe. I would defy anyone to ever "define" this word. As to other uses of non-gloss definitions, prepositions and expressions like "excuse me" are often given non-gloss definitions. To see some more of these go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:non-gloss_definition. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV
Has anyone other than Joyce ever used this word? If not, it belongs in an appendix of nonce words... - -sche (discuss) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed; moved to Appendix:English nonces. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiver note: previously, this met WT:ATTEST and thus would not have failed RFV; things changed in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC discussion: July 2011–November 2012
Sense: trinitarianism; Christian teachings, opposed by Arianism, which defined the relationship between God the Father and Jesus.

This preposterous definition is just something based on an incomplete ("jew"? "bang"?) morphological analysis cum history by Joyce scholars, not usage. How could it be? It is necessarily encycylopedic. Good look with a real definition. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 18:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We consider Ulysses a well-known work. Ergo, automatic inclusion based on already-provided citation.
 * IMO, The problem is how to come up with a "definition", probably "non-gloss", that points a user to some sources and doesn't tempt amateur Joyceans to more non-dictionary material. All nonces without a transparent etymology or morphology would have a similar problem. After decomposing this and glossing the components, what are we supposed to do? DCDuring TALK 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Appendix. bd2412 T 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole entry or what? DCDuring TALK 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose an appendix of coined words appearing in well-known works for which no clear definition exists. Consider the plethora of nonce words making up Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky. bd2412 T 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the "concordance" namespace is a better fit. —Ruakh TALK 00:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Concordances address words from specific works, and we typically use them for words that actually have discernible definitions. I am thinking of an appendix of undefined words irrespective of work. bd2412 T 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would fit with to point to it. DCDuring TALK  22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is exactly why that rule is so unworkable. With only one use, we have no evidence on which to base a definition. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 21:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to break another lance on that fight. I'd settle for any practical solution that didn't involve the speculative kind of definition that literary scholars might produce. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For some situations, that's likely to be unavoidable. There are, for example, many rare and unique words in the Hebrew Bible whose definitions rely entirely on how those words were translated in the Septuagint.  That is, we're assuming that the knowledge/speculation of a group of early scholars gives us the basis for an adequate definition. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't seem like dictionary material to me, however worthy the scholarship and important the term. Virtually nothing of our format, methods, methods, disciplines, and principles is applicable, though I suppose our slogan applies. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @EP, o/t: Could you give some examples of that? There survive a number of early non-Septuagint translations of the Bible into Greek and Aramaic, so it seems odd that the Septuagint could really be the only basis for a definition. (I suppose it's possible — if other translations punted on those words by transliterating them, say, or if they used Greek/Aramaic words whose meanings are just as unclear, or if they're thought to have followed the Septuagint for those words — but I'd appreciate some specific examples that I could look into, if you can name any offhand.) That said, I don't doubt the general claim that, even aside from Joycean and Joycesque coinages, there will always be hapax legomena that will require some amount of speculation. In fact, even non-hapaces can require some speculation. The question is, does the existence of some cases where we don't have a choice (words in the Bible, in Homeric epics, in Shakespeare, where clearly the original intent was that the word be understood, it just didn't work out that way) justify cases like Joyce? I mean, is it even reasonable to describe as "an English word"? —Ruakh TALK 00:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that not all words with one use are equal. To me there is a clear difference between creating a word like, say, elbowness: on the spur of the moment using elements that are part of the language – and inventing deliberately nonsensical one-offs. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How's this? - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)