Category talk:Pseudo-loans by language
Linking past discussion for findability: regarding the category name, see Category talk:Pseudo-anglicisms by language. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Allahverdi Verdizade today remarked that he doesn’t think there are any pseudo-Arabisms in Azerbaijani. So I think there aren’t any pseudo-Anglicisms in German either. All follow some rules.
German Handy may have existed in English when in the early days there existed lots of terms for the new thing, or only the spelling is anglicized and it is actually Händi. And why is Ego-Shooter one? Maybe just a compound of a German word and an English one. The same with Castingshow. Twen is just logical. Fotoshooting is not incorrect either but continues English grammar more than English did itself. Oh, and High Snobiety is too humorous. How containern would be a pseudo-anglicism is a mystery, can’t Germans just form a verb from a borrowed noun.
You can continue this for other languages. What is left but prescriptivism?
In the end it seems indistinguishable from the “false friends” categories which we have agreed not to have but perhaps in appendices: Terms that look like they exist in another language but they don’t there. Fay Freak (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- We do not have a category for pseudo-Sanskritisms in New Indo-Aryan languages, but we have this: Category:Sanskritic formations by language. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, since pseudo-loans are a real phenomenon and it's useful to be able to categorize them. Many clearly cannot be loans of even obscure unrecorded-but-cromulent terms in the "donor" language: for example, pseudo-Latinisms such as illegitimi non carborundum. If some other entries are incorrectly categorized, let's fix them (although only based on evidence, not mere speculation that something could've originally been English and just only ever managed to be attested or mentioned in other languages). - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- We should perheps adapt the subcategories' names to fit the usual "[language name 1] pseudo-loans from [language name 2]" scheme, though (otherwise I might have to invent the term "pseudo-Danism" for Häagen-Dazs). - -sche (discuss) 08:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @-sche: But according to Allahverdi Verdizade, all are incorrectly cateogrized, as quoted. And your example: How can it even be a pseudo-loan if it isn’t even superficially correct Latin? It is another inexactness in our definition: whether for a term to be a pseudo-loan it is necessary that to a speaker of the donor language it likely appears like a term in his language (i.e. from which perspective it is defined).
- And you dodged the question what the difference from false friends is, or a subset of false-friends formed from borrowed words. It is inconsequential to have only this subset of false friends. Fay Freak (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Allahverdi Verdizade is correct that deriving Azerbaijani daimi (“permanent”) from Arabic دَائِمِيّ (dāʔimiyy, “permanent”), if the Arabic entry is correct (I see it's at RFV), wouldn't be a pseudo-loan but a straightforward loan: why would the Azerbaijani term be categorized as a pseudo-loan to begin with? Because it has more meanings than Arabic? But then it is only a "partial false friend", which has to do with words' semantics (and it's common for loans to acquire additional meanings), not a pseudo-loan, which has to do with perceived origin being incorrect (and is rarer).
A false friend also has to exist in both languages, whereas a pseudo-loan either doesn't exist in the ostensible donor at all (as with many pseudo-Latinisms), or doesn't exist as the source of the "loan". In turn, a pseudo-loan is (incorrectly) perceived as deriving from the other language, like Handy or Beamer are commonly felt to be English but in fact exist in English only as later loans from German, whereas a false friend doesn't have to be and usually isn't perceived as deriving from the specified other language (e.g. Spaniards don't think embarazado is a loan from English).
There is an area of overlap, where literature on the topic also considers things like baby-foot to be pseudo-loans since the sequence of baby followed by foot may be found in English but only in unrelated contexts and meanings that clearly aren't the source of the French construction, but where it could be felt to also belong in a "false friends" category. But most cases don't overlap, and hence literature discusses pseudo-loans as a thing. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Allahverdi Verdizade is correct that deriving Azerbaijani daimi (“permanent”) from Arabic دَائِمِيّ (dāʔimiyy, “permanent”), if the Arabic entry is correct (I see it's at RFV), wouldn't be a pseudo-loan but a straightforward loan: why would the Azerbaijani term be categorized as a pseudo-loan to begin with? Because it has more meanings than Arabic? But then it is only a "partial false friend", which has to do with words' semantics (and it's common for loans to acquire additional meanings), not a pseudo-loan, which has to do with perceived origin being incorrect (and is rarer).
- Keep. --Myrelia (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- In the absence of further input in months... kept due to (at a minimum) lack of consensus to delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)