Talk:ennoia

RFV discussion
Not in any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Our entry looks like a copyvio of the definition given by Silva Rhetoricæ...  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition didn't seem to fit usage, which are mostly transliterations of classical Greek . Did Silva Rhetoricae nod? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nod? What do you mean?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Even Jove nods" means "everyone makes mistakes" (I can't remember why). SemperBlotto 16:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) (oe was it Homer?)


 * OK, thanks for the explanation.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We now have and  (of which the former is an alteration).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted for copyright violation. Hopefully someone will write a new definition for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any evidence of the term's use to mean a rhetorical figure. DCDuring seems to have been mostly right in his estimation. I've recreated the entry for the technical term which seems little better than a transliteration. Let me know what you think. Also note the use of as a proper name, often, it seems, as some sort of personification of undefined:.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with the content of the entry, but I have never liked entries for transliterations. I am reminded of our practice on romanized Yiddish spellings. I had always hoped that the typography of italics or quotes meant that we were to ignore such in attestation. Is there usage without italics or quotation marks (or in glossaries or dictioanaries)? DCDuring TALK 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not really a big fan of them, either. Unfortunately, since gone are the days when academic writers would liberally intersperse their works with untransliterated terms and phrases from עִבְרִית, Ἑλληνική, العربية, and संस्कृत, today's readers are likely to encounter an obsure or untranslatable term already Romanised, without even a cursory mention of its form in the original script. Consequently, I feel that we should at least do something to help, and I can't really think of anything better than stubby "transliteration of" entries (though perhaps they should be Translingual). What do you think? Also, what is our "practice on romanized Yiddish spellings"?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We only include transliterated entries as English (Why not translingual?) if they are so attestable. I am unclear under what circumstances attestation is prevented by the typography (italics, quotation marks, etc). We do not show romanizations of Yiddish words as Yiddish, but show the Yiddish ancestor in the etymology. It doesn't seem entirely consistent, but I leave such matters to my betters. I find definition, etymology, and formatting of ordinary English words (not even proper nouns) and idioms more than challenging. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the line between a foreign term appearing transliterated in English text and a highly-unnaturalised English term of foreign origin extremely difficult to make out. IMO, italics are a really bad metric for this; for example, is almost always italicised, but it was formed in English. Furthermore, there are many terms which look like and are treated as if they were foreign, but which either don't exist in their supposed languages of origin or have taken on completely different meanings in English (for examples of these, see List of pseudo-French words adapted to English and List of pseudo-German words adapted to English, as well as Pseudo-anglicism for the same phenomenon in other languages). More absurd still, there are many situations where a commonly used foreign phrase in English is unidiomatic in the source language, which yields the utterly unhelpful and ludicrous outcome that we are barred from creating an entry for a term which frequently occurs in English and whose meaning no average Anglophone could be expected to guess. Whilst having entries for mere transliterations is somewhat undesirable, I see no better way of tackling this issue.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on Doremítzwr's and DCDuring's hints that transliterations should perhaps be considered translingual: Words are transliterated not just into an alphabet but into the pronunciation of that alphabet in a certain language. Thus, the Hebrew word is transliterated "yeshiva" in English (where it hs already become a word) but,, "jesiva" in Hungarian. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to RFD. The current definition is this:
 * which is clearly supported by the citations (at Citations:ennoia), most of which are mentions of the Ancient Greek word or quoting/paraphrasing Ancient Greek works that use the word. So the only question is: do want such an entry?
 * —Ruakh TALK 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * —Ruakh TALK 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion
In the RFV discussion, I wrote this:

Move to RFD. The current definition is this: which is clearly supported by the citations (at Citations:ennoia), most of which are mentions of the Ancient Greek word or quoting/paraphrasing Ancient Greek works that use the word. So the only question is: do want such an entry?

I don't feel very comfortable with this entry, but I'm not sure if it should be deleted, or if there's some way to improve it, or if I should suck it up. :-P

—Ruakh TALK 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Once you've stripped away the citations that are merely mentions of the Ancient Greek word, I still find enough citations that use it as an English word; the 2006 by John Lamb Lash, the 1992 in The Journal of Narrative Technique, and the 1987 ones.--Prosfilaes 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree — the 2006 cite is "using" it only in free indirect speech, and it italicizes it and immediately translates it to English, and the 1992 cite makes as if to coin the word, rather than to use a word that the author believes to exist (and even so the author proceeds to italicize the word in all occurrences) — but if you think you can add and cite a bona fide English sense, be my guest. I'll be happy to change this to an . —Ruakh TALK 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this is a problem for people. Italicized only means it's borrowed, but it's still used in running English text which is what CFI requires. Although both of the quotations introduce the term in the ways you point out, they go on to use it with this same meaning. DAVilla 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet, that's not how we define it. —Ruakh TALK 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

¶ There has been a citations page there for a while, now. Would anybody consider removing the RFD? --Pilcrow 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All citations provided mention or use it italicized, indicating a transliteration. Delete as uncited. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)