Talk:qerth

RFV discussion: December 2019–January 2020
No such word exists, only, and the source given does not attest its existence. -- 04:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Qerth is given in (1) Leonard Newmark's Albanian-English Dictionary (OUP, 1998), p. 712 (online); (2) Gasper Kiçi's Albanian-English Dictionary (Italy, 1978), p. 297; and (3) Fjalor i gjuhës së sotme shqipe (in Albanian) at online. Torvalu4 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of the above, please remove your request.  -- Torvalu4 (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you properly source the entry with cited usage quotes? -- 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. It's not a requirement for verifying the word's existence. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it's just a lexicographer word, backformed from . I can't find any examples of its actual use. -- 20:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, an example of its use is not required. The word's existence has been sufficiently proven. Aside from that, your views on the word are irrelevant. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My views are indeed irrelevant, but, as is, this word does not meet inclusion standards. It's a non-word until proven otherwise. -- 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a requirement. Albanian is a WDL, which means "three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary". Canonicalization (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one can well be pleased too with any example of its usage whatsoever proving its reality (the three-durable-quote stuff seems currently utopical for Albanian), but  does not even try to give any single quote durable or not, and this seems to be so because it is a ghost word, as no string “qerth” or “qerthi” is present in running text on the Albanian web (all pages with the TLD .al), and it seems that Victar can thus well claim that no such word exists, to say nothing about about its meeting higher criteria for inclusion. Fay Freak (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its etymology (it may originate as a back-formation from qerthull, even if, so what?), the fact that the term is not found on the web proves nothing, and certainly doesn't mean it's a "ghost word". It's evidently a very specialised technical term. That it is listed in at least three dictionaries is evidence enough for its reality. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing specialized discernible in the glosses. For a word that isn’t supposedly obsolete in a language that is supposedly spoken by millions in well-developed countries every word is released on the web, so its absence from the web is a strong indicium. In the other scales pan there is that authors may have speculated some terms in etymologies and the reconstruction star got missed and it got copied over and over, in other contexts there are also manuscript corruptions and misprintings. Also dictionaries just make up terms that could be used. That’s why dictionaries aren’t evidence, or it must be open to doubt the dictionaries. If it is a term treated in a dialectological survey, field survey, then of course we should take the claim of the survey as granted, but dictionary publishers don’t make their inclusion criteria transparent and hence there are hidden nefarities. You seem to be really clueless about how the language business works. Fay Freak (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Cited are just for-profit dictionaries with no academic integrity; they're just there to sell books, and the more words, the better. Contrast that to the scholarly dictionaries, where R:sq:Demiraj lists, but not qerth, and R:sq:Orel lists and qerth-, in the way of breaking down the first element, but, again, qerth itself is missing. If these Albanian scholars don't recognize qerth as an independent word, why are we?
 * What Orel does list is, , (Tosk) , which he derives from Greek , and appears to be the basis of the definition given on . -- 18:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

, going around posting the same question to the talk page of users is considered spamming. If you want to get the attention of multiple people, use User1. -- 18:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ! Resolving Rfv. -- 19:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)