Talk:lapsus linguae

English citations which appear to use the term without explanation: ,   Kappa 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They all italicize the term, though, which suggests that the phrase hasn't been fully adopted into English. (I think it's a valid entry even so, but I understand why Connel MacKenzie would disagree.) The problem is that the CFI don't seem to specify how to decide whether a word (or in this case phrase) has been borrowed. —RuakhTALK 07:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

lapsus linguae
English? Very doubtful. --Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * b.g.c. shows that it's used primarily in English contexts (668 hits at http://books.google.com/books?q=lapsus+linguae), but obviously no one would use it without knowing what language it's coming from; is this enough to make something English? The CFI don't seem to give specific criteria for loanwords, beyond implying that spaghetti is one while ricordati is not. —RuakhTALK 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The google books hits indicate that it's a term frequently used to convey meaning in English-language discussions, I think that should be enough. Kappa 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Every use I've seen on b.g.c. show it in italics (or don't have image preview.) All "uses" then go on to translate the Latin as "slip of the tongue."  This is not English.  Quick reminder:


 * --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, please calm down; no one said otherwise. The b.g.c. hits do include dictionaries, but also include plenty of non-dictionary uses. Note that we do allow use+mention contexts, where the word is simultaneously used and defined (&agrave; la "He asked me to pass the vegemite (an Australian food paste made from brewer's yeast)."). —RuakhTALK 23:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is not calm? Or are you referring to the wording of ?  (The original contributor was busy adding dict-refs when I last looked.)
 * Please allow me to clarify: Yes, we should have a Latin entry for lapsus linguae, but it seems pretty clear that there should not be an ==English== section on that page. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, sorry; I didn't catch that was a template, and it looked like you typed a long, strenuous comment rather than just 15 characters. Nonetheless, I'd note that the original contributor was not adding them as references, but rather as external links, which IMHO is pointless but relatively harmless.


 * As for its being Latin — well, is it a Latin idiom? Obviously it's a Latin phrase, but it's not obvious to me that its current idiomatic sense is ancient.


 * —RuakhTALK 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should have an English entry, just like faux pas or persona non grata or any one of dozens of others. It's used in English all the time.  Widsith 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now cited. (Sorry for the delay.) It turns out that Connel is mistaken: I had no difficulty whatsoever finding cites where the term was used without explanation.

I also added a French cite and a Spanish cite for good measure. (I also found a number of German cites and one Italian cite in the range 1897–1898, but I don't speak those languagues. I considered adding cites without translation, but realized that without understanding the context, I couldn't distinguish uses from mentions, so it was a lost cause; but if someone who speaks one of those languages would like to, I'd appreciate it. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22lapsus+linguae%22+date%3A1897-1898&num=20 is a good starting-point.)

—RuakhTALK 17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added German. — Beobach972 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RFVpassed. — Beobach972 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion (2)
This is a Latin phrase. The citations given are almost all in italics; the anti-put-it-in-the-correct-language-heading cabal incorrectly marked this as RFVpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it should be kept. It is used all the time in English books and conversation.  Yes, it is sometimes used in italics but that does not by itself exclude it.  The real test should be whether or not a word/phrase from another language needs to be translated to be understood.  Widsith 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: this RFV is for the English section only. (Interesting that there isn't even a Latin section - probably non NPOV vandalism somewhere along the way.)  --Connel MacKenzie 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who let slip we even have that cabal; we're definitely going to have to censure him/her at the next meeting. :-P  —RuakhTALK 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note also the invalid references; one says it is Latin (unlike their normal notation from) while the other reference link is a dead link. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this confusion arose from the fact that, whereas we would write  From lapsus linguae.  in the etymology of such an entry, lots of other dictionaries (like the COED [11th Ed.] for one) just give the source language, in which case the etymon is presumed identical. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you might have misclicked? For me, the one that was a dead link (which I've now fixed; thanks for pointing it out) was the same one that (once you clicked the "did you mean" link) gave simply "Latin" as the etymology; the other one doesn't seem to mention Latin at all. And the one that does give Latin as the etymology includes both an unqualified pronunciation and an "Eng." pronunciation, which does seem to suggest it acknowledges it as an English word. —RuakhTALK 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the links. --Connel MacKenzie 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel I need to restate my complaint about this entry. My initial tone has thrown this entire conversation out of whack.

The basic rationale for having an ==English== section for this term is as follows: learned scholars use this pompously in English contexts, so we would be negligent to omit it.

That "dumbing down" of Wiktionary is unacceptable, as it ignores several things. One is that 'learned scholars' know it is Latin, and therefore always italicize it. It also ignores the implicit pomposity of deigning to use that in English; on IRC someone suggested using a template amidst laughter. It also ignores the fact that 'learned scholars' will usually explain it immediately (depending on the audience they are addressing.)

The entry for lapsus linguae should be ==Latin==, not ==English==. A very brief stub ==English== section might also be warranted, if couched with sufficient warnings (i.e. it should always be italicized and it conveys an enormously condescending tone.)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as a foreign term used in English. This Latin term is not used in all languages. Not all Latin terms are used in English. This Latin term is used in English and real dictionaries such as Collins and Merriam-Webster include it as such. Encarta does not include it and the Spanish RAE dictionary does not include it . Interestingly, the RAE Spanish dictionary includes it with a hybrid orthography where both words retain their Latin spelling but Spanish use of the acute accent to indicate stress is used. &mdash; Hippietrail 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (ammended Hippietrail 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC))


 * This is a request for verification. The examples (so far) of English use do not show it being used as English; they show it as being used as Latin within English contexts.  --Connel MacKenzie 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of use would you consider to be properly English, rather than Latin-in-an-English-context? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say "Latin-in-an-English-context," rather, I said Latin. As in, "'learned scholars' know it is Latin."  I do not see the point of dumbing-down Wiktionary, calling Latin terms English.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note the new Icelandic translation seems to be for "Freudian slip" not "lapsus linguae." --Connel MacKenzie 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you consider words like cliché or frisson to be French and not English? They often still appear in italics.  Surely if a word is regularly used in English sentances without being translated there comes a point where you have to accept that it is part of our language as well.  Widsith 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You’d think so, after over a hundred years of usage. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Widsith, I don't uniformly italicize "cliché" when I write it, but then, I usually write the English word cliche. But the accented version certainly does appear in English without italics frequently, (if not more often than in italics.)  I am not familiar with the word frisson.  What then, does this have to do with the Latin term lapsus linguae?  --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both the Icelandic translations mean the same as lapsus linguae. --BiT 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't entering translations like that routinely. Those seem to be synonyms (in Icelandic) not a translation of the Latin phrase.  If that somehow is translated from Latin "lapsus linguae" to Icelandic "slip of the tongue" directly, it should be entered as a translation.  But that is more than a little hard to believe.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  That is, how would you translate the sentence "He made a slip of the tongue, or as we say, a lapsus lingue."?  --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept. —Ruakh TALK 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ˈlɪŋɡwaɪ
According to LPD ˈlɪŋɡwaɪ is the standard pronunciation --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)