Talk:scénárista

Proscribed
SSJC and ASCS do not contain the word form, but that is not an act of proscription, by my lights.

As for Behún, Dalibor; Behún, Petr (2013), I quote from that work: "Přestože je slovo scenárista, tedy označení autora scénářů, odvozeno od výrazu scéna, píše se s krátkým e.". That is demonstrably false, by the large actual usage:. I find this whole idea of peddling fancies of people who could not care to look at empirical evidence even if their life depended on it absurd. I motion to dismiss Behún and Behún on counts of fundamental unreliability. Unfortunately, Behún and Behún's proscription is a fact, and a sufficient basis for "sometimes proscribed" label, since that is factually true. Let's hope for saner times in some distant future. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The French verb is very regularly used as a prepositionally transitive verb (pallier à, pallier au, pallier aux, pallient à, palliaient à, pallieront à, etc.); widespread use doesn't make it right. Per utramque cavernam 19:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Right" does not mean anything in a descriptivist dictionary; "actual" rules the day. And if something is claimed to be wrong, there should at least be a rationale; rationales at least can be disputed by search for counterexamples while rationale-free utterances not so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway, there is more discussion at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-10/Removing label proscribed from entries. What I find most infuriating how utterly fact-free those proscriptions often are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , etc. "right" means "that won't make you be singled out, laughed at or ostracised in educated circles and formal settings". I'm exaggerating, but I don't agree with your trying to do away with the notions of "proscription" and "prescription"; I'll reiterate that "True descriptivism must include prescriptivism."
 * I know nothing about Czech and you may very well be right in this instance, but I'm suspicious. Per utramque cavernam 19:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "What I find most infuriating how utterly fact-free those proscriptions often are": proscriptions from whose part? Ours or language regulators'? Per utramque cavernam 19:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I find most infuriating is how utterly fact-free those proscriptions made in various publications outside of Wiktionary, by various pundits or official institutions, often are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway, what makes you think that uses of pallier as a prepositionally transitive verb are wrong? (I know no French.) What is your source of knowledge about that kind of information? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right that some proscriptions are baseless (though not all of them), but we still have to record them, as they're likely to carry some weight in the eyes of people. Per utramque cavernam 20:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, really, what makes you think that uses of pallier as a prepositionally transitive verb are wrong, and how do you know that, apart from reference to authority? And how does the authority know that such uses are wrong? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in particular. To be honest, I'm not particularly bothered by à quelque chose (this is not an extremely common verb anyway); I find it natural even, to the point that I have to make some effort to use pallier quelque chose. An argument brought forth by the Académie is that the etymon of pallier, namely 🇨🇬, is itself directly transitive; I don't find it terribly relevant, but oh well. The thing is that I'm fine with parroting in this case: I know that certain people will heed the prescriptions of regulatory bodies, will follow them, and I want to belong to that group.
 * (going off on a tangent) Things I feel more strongly about are or, which really grate on my ears, and on the ones of most educated people I know. They're not simply informal, they're ugly and hurt my Sprachgefühl in a way that other informal (even vulgar) terms do not. Should we have the same "proscribed" label for pallier à and malgré que/combientième? I don't know. Maybe some people feel as strongly about pallier à than I do about malgré que. Per utramque cavernam 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As for "I suppose you're right that some proscriptions are baseless (though not all of them), but we still have to record them, as they're likely to carry some weight in the eyes of people", what about this: "astrological horoscopes are wrong but we have to record them as they're likely to carry some weight in the eyes of people". I mean, really? What has "carry some weight in the eyes of people" to do with facts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see what astrology has to do with anything.
 * Let's talk about facts: if some entities (be it authors, grammar writers, linguists, anyone really) consider certain words and usages to be erroneous, and proscribe them; and if those entities are seen as authorities (meaning they're given the - explicit or implicit - power to decide what is grammatically right and wrong); then these words and usages are effectively proscribed. In the end, it does not even matter whether their claims are baseless or not: the effect is that they are going to be taken seriously; that (some) people are going to refer to them and abide by them; and that the people ignoring them and not abiding by them will be at risk of being criticised for it. What I'm saying is that we have to indicate that; nothing more, nothing less. We're not here to repair injustice done to certain words and usages, or campaign against linguistic authorities (no matter the quality of their work). We're here to expose facts, as you're fond of repeating, and the fact is that a certain proscription exists. Of course we're also free to bring up facts that point towards that proscription being baseless, but that's it.
 * Sometimes it sounds as if you were saying "if it's found on Google Books, it's fine" or "what's best is what's got most hits on Google Books." I disagree with that; it's only part of the picture. Per utramque cavernam 13:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Two more things:
 * Why is this entry formatted as a full lemma and not an alternative spelling (or the reverse)?
 * "The spelling is not present in current prescriptive dictionaries;  is considered the only correct variant in those." > is the word "prescriptive" warranted? Do these dictionaries describe themselves as prescriptive? Or do other people describe these dictionaries as prescriptive? Do these dictionaries explicitly reject that spelling, or do they simply ignore it altogether? Is there any dictionary that includes that spelling?
 * Finally, I didn't participate in the vote you linked to above (although I would certainly have voted against the proposal had I been around at that time); I did, however, take part in its successor, Votes/2017-07/Changing the wording of the "proscribed" label, where I opposed changing the label "proscribed" to the (imo) shitty "considered incorrect." I would consider voting in support if it were to be changed to "disputed" or "criticised". Per utramque cavernam 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * By that reasoning, peddling unverified gossip is fine as long as it is in the form of "X said Y", since even if Y is baseless, "X said Y" is still a fact. X can be a tabloid, or it can be a piece of tabloid pseudo-lexicography such as Behún Behún 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your are not a prescriptivist. Nothing wrong about that. That means you are against the very idea of proscribing some words or spelling variants of those. Nothing wrong about that. But there are other people who want to have norms and prescriptions on how to “correctly” use the language (and, I would say, quite a lot of ingrained tradition of prescriptive linguistics of the Czech language). And they get their norms and prescriptions from the widely used “official” dictionaries and grammars. If you write “scénárista“ in a dictation exercise, you’ll get a worse grade. That’s a fact regardless of whether it is a good idea (or whether it is based on anything) or not (and: you could argue against the specific example of Behún&Behún if they were an exception, a lonely voice proscribing otherwise completely fine word; they are not). Maybe the users of English Wiktionary do not need or want this information. But many Czech users of dictionaries definitely want to know whether a word is considered “correct” or “incorrect” (again: I understand you would be most happy if they accepted there are no such categories). I am happy to mark it as “proscribed” (instead of “wrong spelling of”) as in “many people use it, there is nothing inherently wrong about it, but today’s dictionaries and grammars use a different spelling and some people will frown upon you should you use it this way”, but I believe the information should be there. (BTW, what about e.g. “sichravý”? Sure, no dictionaries contain the word, and they contain “sychravý”, but they do not contain an explicit entry “sichravý is a wrong spelling”…) --Mormegil (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I above all am against Wiktionary being prescriptivist. As for 'If you write “scénárista“ in a dictation exercise, you’ll get a worse grade', you haven proven as much, and that's the problem. You merely assume that when a form is absent from official dictionaries, Czech users will automatically think of it as proscribed, but that assumption is what you have not demonstrated. The search in copyedited corpus suggests a wide acceptance of "scénárista", suggesting that many professionals copyeditors have no problem with "scénárista". On another point, Behún Behún 2013 says "příp. scenérie" in the location that you quote, and yet "scenérie" unlike "scenerie" is absent from SSČ, as pointed out in another paragraph below, so they are inconsistent in their deference to SSČ. Further, Behún and Behún is not a lexicographical source; it does not add anything. We do not need Behún and Behún to tell us a term is not in SSČ: we can look up terms in SSČ ourselves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * sichravý vs. sychravý will get handled in the English Wiktionary based on relative frequency; in Wiktionary, sichravý will get marked either as a misspelling, a rare spelling or obsolete spelling based on relative frequency and the years in which it appears. Either way, the reader will know they are at risk using the spelling. The risk determination will be based on actual usage, the real linguistic behavior of real people., ; category:English misspellings; User talk:Dan Polansky/2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's recall: I have no objection to a neutral usage note stating a form is absent from SSČ. What I object to is labeling that gives this kind of information undue weight. And I object to using yellow/tabloid lexicography like Behún Behún 2013, which really is an analogue of Blesk, as a source of anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * For the broader subject, I now created Wiktionary talk:About Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

scenérie
The form scenérie is absent from SSČ, which is more modern than SSJČ. SSJČ has scenérie; SSČ only has scenerie. Should now scenérie be labeled "sometimes proscribed" since it is proscribed-by-absence by SSČ? As for my idiolect, I find "scenérie" to be the natural form, while "scenerie" sounds archaic to me. , google books, lang=cs, "scenerie". Other similar forms that I find natural include mašinérie, rafinérie, tapisérie, Arménie, Nigérie, and less close to it, série, havárie, Tramtárie, akvárium, terárium, Austrálie, Amélie, lapálie, patálie and anémie; more at Rhymes:Czech/ɪjɛ. On the other hand, there is baterie, bakterie, amnestie, etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)