Talk:hyperforeign

Not in the OED. Presently defined as a noun despite having the form of an Adjective and having that header. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also recently become part of our infrastructure:


 * Template:hyperforeign
 * Appendix:Glossary


 * The reader shouldn't need to use a hyper-current dictionary just to use the dictionary. Let's not protologize our text.  I also don't think that we should be creating new prescriptive usage labels while real dictionaries are moving away from them.


 * By the way, the Taj Mahal example is wrong. In Canadian English, for example, it is pronounced only with [ʒ]. —Michael Z. 2009-05-30 15:24 z 


 * I am in total agreement with making sure that this does not become part of our infrastructure. It is in neither COCA nor BNC, which suggests that it might not be very widely used.
 * I took the liberty of:
 * rewording the noun definition for the adjective that it seems to really be and
 * commenting out the IPA in the definition, which made the definition almost as inaccessible as quaternion notation would.
 * It could probably stand to have another example. Let me suggest use of to take the example out of the definition. I always thought that we should try to have definitions that stand on their own.
 * OTOH, it is readily attestable, though probably better presented as an alternative spelling of hyper-foreign. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I retract my objections to using this in Wiktionary. Unhyphenated hyperforeign seems to have displaced hyper-foreign in recent texts. —Michael Z. 2009-05-30 18:17 z 


 * Was your original objection based on the hyphen?
 * That the terms have been around for a long time and have yet to appear in broad corpora suggests that using them commits us to for language specialists and wannabes. I believe that the terms "hypernym", "hyponym", "meronym", "holonym", "troponym", and "ergative" are objectionable for the same reason. Similarly, in-line use of phonetic alphabets outside of the pronunciation section. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quotation, complete with Taj Mahal. —Michael Z. 2009-05-30 16:08 z 


 * 1982, John C. Wells, Accents of English 1: An Introduction, p 108:
 * Educated people are thus aware that words in or from foreign languages are subject to somewhat different reading rules from those applying to English. But they are often vague about them, and about the different rules applicable to different foreign languages.  Many resulting pronunciations are absurd in that they reflect neither the reading rules of English nor those of the language from which the word in question comes.  For example, there is an awareness based on French that /dʒ/ is an English-type consonant, for which /ʒ/ is the ‘foreign’ equivalent. But when this leads to raj, Taj Mahal, mah-jongg, or adagio with /ʒ/ instead of /dʒ/ (although the languages of origin have affricates in these words), we have what might well be called a hyperforeignism. [boldfaced in source]

After a bit of searching (Amazon.com is productive), some quick hypotheses:


 * 1) hyperforeignism is easily attestable per CFI
 * 2) hyperforeignism is both count and mass noun
 * 3) hyperforeignism is restricted to linguistics
 * 4) also seen are related hyperforeign, hyper-foreign, hyperforeignization, hyper-foreignization, foreignizing, hyperdialectalism

—Michael Z. 2009-05-30 16:27 z 


 * Created hyperforeignism. —Michael Z. 2009-05-30 17:07 z 

Added quotations, striking. —Michael Z. 2009-05-30 17:59 z