Talk:tovarish

RFD discussion: June–July 2014
Also, tovarich and tovarishch. These are not words in the English language. They are merely romanizations of the Russian товарищ; the citations given use qualifications in the preceding or following sentences that show that they are understood to be words in Russian, not English. I have no objection to entries presenting these words as Russian romanizations, but it is a misstatement of fact to present them as being part of the English language. bd2412 T 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In, Collins and Merriam-Webster seem to think otherwise. The string "tovarish" would not appear in Czech; that would be "tavárišč" . --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would contend that those dictionaries have fallen off the slippery slope of labeling romanizations as English words. There is nothing, by that logic, which would prevent the inclusion of any attestable romanization as an "English" word. bd2412 T 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: 'There is nothing, by that logic, which would prevent the inclusion of any attestable romanization as an "English" word.' Yes, but the romanization has to be attested to convey meaning in the middle of English sentence full of English words. Nothing wrong with that, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. If we agree (and I imagine we do) that languages can borrow words from other languages, then the question is whether the citations currently in the entry are sufficient to verify that tovarish has been borrowed into English, as opposed to just transliterated. Isn't this then a matter to be handled on RFV by laying out why particular citations are invalid, and asking for better ones?
 * 2. I think [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tovarish&diff=27315937&oldid=27315382 these citations] of the word in the plural demonstrate its English-ness, that is, demonstrate that it's a loanword rather than a transliteration. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me from the immediate context whether those plurals are also conveyed as being words in Russian, being used to show the Russian-ness of the speaker. Could one not, speaking of Greeks, Indians, and Sri Lankans say that they were accompanied by fíloses, dosts, and miturās to the same effect? Also, do comparable examples exist for tovariches and tovarishches? bd2412 T 19:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Tovarish just sounds like a familiar English word to me. I’ve heard and seen it used many times in my life, as also effendi, sheikh, monsieur, mademoiselle, herr, frau, fraulein, monsignor, senor, senora, senorita, and san. Not so with fílos, dost, and miturā. —Stephen (Talk) 20:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't think that by trying to demote loanwords to mere romanisations, it's not going to gain points on promoting romanisation as entries. Being a Russian, I am sometimes called "tovarish" by English (and other language) speakers (meaning from "comrade", "communist", even if I'm not to simply a slang word for "Russian"). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tovarish and other words that show up romanized in running foreign text are part of the reason I haven't been anti-romanization, because unlike scientific romanization, they really need an entry of some sort IMO. Not sure tovarish is the best example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a romanized Russian word only pertains to etymology, it does not say anything about the Englishness of the word. Some quotations are only mentions, they should not be considered, but other quotations are actual uses in English. The same applies to autoroute, to judo or to Kremlin. All these words are used in English, and deserve an "English" entry, even when it's difficult to consider them as English words. Similarly, highway is an English word, but I would support the addition of a French section, because this word is used in French in some circumstances. Lmaltier (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Leaving all the transliteration argument on the side, tovarishes is huge blinking letters indicating that the word is English, not transliteration from the Russian plural.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From the Russian singular. Yes, keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (in case my previous comment was unclear). - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, this time in boldface. Attested to convey meaning in the middle of English sentence; has English tovarishes plural; as an auxiliary check, Stephen (native speaker) says it feels like English word to him. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per other people's comments. Also it's definitely not Russian, unless it's used three times in durably archived Russian texts. Is it? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept. — Keφr 07:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)