Talk:lärftskramhandlarsocieteter

RFV
Tagged by an anon who claims it doesn't exist. Any proof? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't we speedy it because it's a plural and we don't have the singular yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, good point. I think that is our practice. (Whether it should be or not is a separate matter. De.Wikt has lots of inflected forms without lemmata, and I've found it helpful about as often as I've found it unhelpful.) - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the singular exists, together with the components of the compound. This is indeed a most uncommon word, but it does appear here. However, the English entry for linendraper is still missing. --LA2 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * August Strindbeg is a well-known author par excellence, but don't we need another quote? --Hekaheka (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can use that page to cite klädeshandlarsocietet as well? 03:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Question to LA2: are you sure that such guild ever existed under that name and that the author did not use the word "societet" in its other meaning "upper class, socialites"? If he had meant a guild, he might rather have used the word "gille". If I'm right, the modern Swedish equivalent for societeter in this case would be kretsar. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Side note: someone should add societet, as its plural societeter is already there. --WikiTiki89 08:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The author here is Jan Myrdal, writing about August Strindberg. The text is about these societies or guilds protesting against competition from jewish immigrants, as one root for antisemitism in Sweden. I don't know what the actual guilds were named. I have added references to, which is a word that appears in dictionaries. The longer word (l-societet) is a far less common word, that normally hasn't appeared in dictionaries. So should it appear in Wiktionary? In English, the "linendrapers' guild" would just be a "sum of parts" and therefore not included. But in Swedish it is one compound word. I'm really not sure where to draw the line. --LA2 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been a common issue lately. Some users here think that a 'part' in a SOP term is always and only separated from surrounding text by delimiting characters like spaces, hyphens and such (in languages that use them). Others (including me) believe that this bases the concept of idiomaticity on orthography, rather than on the ability of speakers of the language to figure out the meaning of the word by its parts. 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, it does appear in the dictionary, with an extra -e- that most people would not use: --LA2 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, this fails RFV because it has insufficiently many citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)