Talk:jkn

RFC discussion: October–November 2017
Do we really have to have abbreviations in the definitions? —Rua (mew) 11:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Better now? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's wrong to define an abbreviation (Finnish jkn) with an abbreviation of another language (English sthg). The pair sthg-jkn represents a back-to-back -translation. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very helpful, though, when the abbreviation is as obscure as "sthg" is. English dictionaries usually use sth for something, and even that isn't familiar to most readers. Glossing as  or  as  is unproblematic in my opinion, but glossing  as  (or even ) will just baffle people. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that my original work was wrong: "jkn" means "jonkun" and only that. See also and . --Hekaheka (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , : May I consider this topic exhausted and remove the RFC tag? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I'm concerned. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Also Rua's original comment has been taken into account: there are no abbreviations left in the definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)