Talk:ümlaut

RFD discussion: February–July 2023

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.

---

ümlaut

This is not an "alternative" spelling of Umlaut, it is just a silly mistake, and no more deserving of an article than any random typo. Of course in the vastness of the internet you'll find a couple of rare examples. But the citations given do not suggest that anyone is being funny or sensational or trying to create any other effect - they are just errors. An n-gram search produced exactly zero hits, so it is not even a common error. This should just be deleted. Doric Loon (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong keep. Error or not, Wiktionary doesn't have a rule against documenting hyperforeignisms, which are more etymologically interesting than random typos. See also habañero, sacré bleu, and toupée. Binarystep (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The citations given look like me to be simple spelling mistakes by people not familiar with German. Etymologically interesting or not, I don't see the argument for documenting this if it is not a common mistake. Should we document the misspelling ‘apartement’ for appartement?  --Lambiam 10:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that apartement is most likely a simple typo (though it does exist as an obsolete spelling, for what it's worth), while ümlaut is an intentional (though proscribed) spelling, similar to the other examples I mentioned. This RFD contradicts over a decade of precedent, which has largely leaned towards descriptivism in situations like this. Binarystep (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose creating apartement, though I shan't be bothered to create it and add the necessary quotes personally, but while investigating the apartement situation I came across our entry apartement-sits which is surely a simple typo. I've just RFD-ed it. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there evidence the misspelling is intentional?  --Lambiam 17:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It takes extra effort to type ümlaut instead of umlaut, which indicates that its users mistakenly believed it to be the standard spelling. On the other hand, a misspelling like apartement could easily be explained by someone accidentally skipping a key when typing. Binarystep (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete in principle, if it is indeed true that it has no independent semantic meaning, and nobody using it really means anything by it, and it's just an error. But I don't feel confident in my ability to confirm that as fact. AllenY99 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no policy forbidding errors, though. We've spent years documenting misspellings, nonstandard terms, proscribed terms, hyperforeignisms (which ümlaut is an example of), and mistakes made by non-native speakers. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. Binarystep (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Binarystep Of course Wiktionary is descriptive. But if a variant is really just an error, you have to ask about the usefulness of documenting it if the error is not even common. I would be more generous with variants where the speech community is pronouncing something differently, but wouldn't document everything that, say, a dyslexic might write. At any rate, if this is to be kept, it needs to be clearly marked as non-standard or misspelling. Doric Loon (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards voting to keep, per Binarystep's arguments. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep. It's not enormously common, but certainly more common in books and journals than the nom makes out ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. Weak keep.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All but one of those strike me as more mentions than uses: the writers are demonstrating what an umlaut is by putting one on the word itself. It's sort of like "ALL CAPS", bold or "italics". I'm not sure any of them would spell it that way in other contexts. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that application of the use–mention distinction works: even if that is true, they're still all using the word umlaut in running prose (or poetry), in its accepted meaning. They aren't mentioning it (or the form ümlaut for that matter)—the only thing that could be considered as being mentioned is the diacritic itself, but that seems like an odd takeaway. In general spellings that are intentionally different to make a point are still valid spellings from a lexicographical standpoint; they don't then become mentions. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that we have other entries like CamelCase and EBG13 that are similarly self-demonstrating. Binarystep (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment ... am I right that our traditional policy of requiring three citations is meaningless here, because the hurdle to jump is that it must be a common misspelling? Meaning that it must have some appreciable ratio relative to the proper spelling, perhaps 1/100 or even 1/10 rather than just three uses against millions? I just want to be sure, since there is no explicit policy given. Thanks, —Soap— 17:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak delete. It doesnt seem very common relative to the correct spelling. All we've got is the one hit from the travel guide and the Usenet hits, which are mostly in German and thus presumably purposeful misspellings .... this would pass RFV, but that doesnt seem to be the hurdle we're jumping. One difference with habañero is that the latter error also extends to pronunciation. —Soap— 05:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not clicking the links to print books that Muqanna posted. However some of those might be purposeful misspelling as well. I still want to stand on my point that this is readily documentable, but not particularly common in proportion to the correct spelling. —Soap— 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep as a hyperforeignism. Theknightwho (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep, sufficient caution is provided by labels. Technically people can also look it up to see our stance on its lexical status. Fay Freak (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep per Theknightwho. AG202 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain. It's pretty useless, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Şțr̃öňġ Ķëëṗ ṗêŗ Ḃìňäṙÿšṫëṗ. bd2412 T 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Parses as a sort of metalinguistic joke, intentional or not. – Jberkel 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

RFD-kept. PUC – 12:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)