Talk:nomen appellativum

RFV discussion: April–July 2016
Is this attested as English? If so, is this rare or obsolete? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently current in scholarly and academic use. Just Google "as a nomen appellativum" and the first page of results (at least what I got) had English-language hits from 1843 to 2002.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the 2002 hit is from Petr Pokorný, ‎Jan Roskovec - 2002, two non-native speakers, Czechs. Then I find other hits that appear non-native. There's E. W. Hengstenberg - 2008, a German who per WP has died in 1869. My search: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * How about searching for "a nomen appellativum"? That gives a few more results (though some non-English ones).
 * Or maybe try "the nomen appellativum". That also has several English results.
 * The plural "the nomina appellativa" however only gives a few results.
 * Does it really matter whether natives or non-natives wrote English? English is a melting-pot language anyway, spoken e.g. in Britain, America, India, Australia, spoken e.g. by whites, blacks, browns, yellows.
 * And why not also RFV for nomen proprium? If that's attested, it should be very likely that there's also the antonym nomen appellativum.
 * -84.161.2.139 18:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan Polansky's Google Book search seems to demonstrate existence. As for context labels, is it rare, dated, only used for Latin, what? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added several cites, so it should soon be RFV passed.
 * Petr Pokorný and ‎Jan Roskovec were the editors. The text was written by somebody else (a German?) and the book was printed in Germany. Nevertheless the language is English, not Czech or German or Denglish.
 * Context labels are not a matter for RFV, maybe it's a matter for RFC.
 * The term is not only used for Latin.
 * The term is still in use.
 * rare is a relative word; the term nomen appellativum is rarer, but I don't know if that qualifies as rare.
 * "used for Latin" and "rare" should fit if one adds "grammar", that is something like "in grammar rarely used for Latin".
 * The term is often, but not always, used with italics. That could be put in a general label, but not in a context label, so maybe it should rather be a usage note.
 * There often is a "foreign element", e.g. a non-native author (often a European, especially a German) or the English author translated from another language (often German) or the text is related to Latin. Maybe that could be noted somehow.
 * -Ikiaika (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. We should try to come up with a good label. I tagged it as rare, but it seems it is even less than that, as noted by Ikiaika. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023
Tagged by Dan Polansky on 11 September (“the quotations that use the term in italics do not count for attestation and the 1825 quote in brackets is not a use but a mention)”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth noting in this case that every citation is either by a German (or Dane in Nielsen's case) or translated from German. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the italics are relevant if the term is used in running text without any particular explanation in its immediate vicinity. The reason why it’s relevant sometimes is that italics are a common way of distinguishing mentions, but it’s not a hard rule (just as uses can also appear in quotation marks, as those also have multiple functions/purposes). With the exception of 1825 and 1855, all other citations here look to be uses, and any italics employed are just a stylistic choice. Theknightwho (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there consensus to call this ✅? (Feb 11) Ioaxxere (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed, nominator banned. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)