Talk:eerste Germaanse klankverschuiving

RFD discussion: April–May 2021
Literally, "first Germanic sound shift". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

wet van Grimm
Literally, "law of Grimm", that is "Grimm's law". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

tweede Germaanse klankverschuiving
Literally, "second Germanic sound shift". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoogduitse klankverschuiving
Literally, "High German sound shift".

These are all terms for sound laws, making them rather encyclopaedic content. The extent to which they are SOP is debatable, but if we have these linguistic laws we might as well add a plethora of physical and chemical laws. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely not SOP. There seems to be a misunderstanding afoot that a non-English expression is SOP if it corresponds word for word to its English equivalent, but that isn't the case. If Grimm's law isn't SOP, neither is wet van Grimm. If High German consonant shift isn't SOP, neither is Hoogduitse klankverschuiving. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suffer no such misunderstanding. But obviously any academic label will only imperfectly describe the phenomenon, because there are always details that are not at all obvious from the name. To (hypothetically) deduce from this that this means that such terms cannot be SOP seems very dubious to me. I think that there is little added value in having dozens of entries beginning with wet van... and High German consonant shift (IMO even more SOP than the Dutch) is obviously describing a consonant shift that is typical for High German despite the name not explaining which consonants are affected. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Applying user-centricity: if the meaning can't be inferred from the parts, then it warrants a lemma. Morgengave (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Most of these scientific laws, phenomena, effects, etc. are SOP at least in non-English languages, and maybe even in English. I wish we had a non-binding policy (written more in the style of a recommendation than a command) against non-English terms that are nothing more than word-for-word translation of an English equivalent, plus/minus an extra article or preposition. Far from a "misunderstanding," we have applied this principle before (see, e.g. in Italian,, , , etc.). Imetsia (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * delete eerste/tweede Germaanse/Hoogduitse klankverschuiving as SOP, weaker delete wet van Grimm as (imo) useless in a dictionary [not every encyclopedical concept should appear here]. I don't see why we should pursue the goal of describing any scientific law (wet van Ohm, wet van Archimedes...) if our sister project Wikipedia does this far better, given they don't often appear in non-scientific literature. Thadh (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between explaining the term so laypeople can fully understand it and giving a brief definition to let the reader know what kind of a thing it is and a link to a source that explains it. The first is a job for an encyclopedia, but the second is perfectly normal for dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It still depends on how specific the term is - I agree with you that some like Newton's third law should be included for being used in mainstream literature/media, but I don't see a way one without a knowledge what Grimm's law is could stumble at a text that neither explains it nor is scientific; furthermore, if one can identify the lemma (search for "...'s law"), they can just as well go to an encyclopedia entry - which by the way starts with a definition like we have. Perhaps we should have a CFI for laws/scientific concepts like we have for geographical locations (three figurative uses in WDLs)? Thadh (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At I argued for a uniform criterion for proper nouns naming a specific entity, suggesting that WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION could serve as a source of inspiration. See also the contribution by RDBury. The criterion as suggested there would also work here, or so it seems to me. Specifically, is there a sufficient number of uses of the term Grimm’s law, other than in the professional literature, where the reader is assumed to understand the meaning of the term without explanation or further reference?  --Lambiam 11:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)