Talk:Abh. Berl. Akad.

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Abh.Berl.Akad.

German abbreviation of Abhandlungen der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (“Treatises of the Royal Prussian Academy of [the] Sciences in Berlin”). I made this entry. An anonymous user recently tagged it for verification with the comment “(not to be confused with existing Abh. Berl. Akad., Abh. der Berl. Akad.)”, but without adding a section for it here (I note that neither Abh. Berl. Akad. nor Abh. der Berl. Akad. is currently extant). I got the abbreviation from Liddell & Scott's list of Periodical abbreviations, where it occurs thus, without spaces. However, I am indifferent as to whether the entry should be spelt Abh.Berl.Akad. or Abh. Berl. Akad.; google books:"Abh.Berl.Akad." shows plenty of uses, but Google Books does not distinguish spaced from unspaced uses. Whichever the form, it is clearly verifiable.

On a different matter, both Abh.Berl.Akad. and Abh. Berl. Akad. would naïvely expand to Abhandlung(en) [einer/der] Berliner Akademie(n) (“Treatise(s) of [a/the] Berlin Academ[y/ies]”): The name of the periodical is not inferrable from Abh. + Berl. + Akad. The name of the Academy and, a fortiori, its periodical varied over time; I expanded the abbreviation of the latter according to the name of the former settled on by Vera Enke (archivist at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities), as quoted in w:de:Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften#19. Jahrhundert (Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin).

0DF (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Liddell & Scott is English and not German. (And English and German spelling differs: in English abbreviations without spaces are common while in German they are proscribed, like Duden only having z. B..)

Abh. Berl. Akad. can be found and isn't requested to be verified; only Abh.Berl.Akad. is. So a simply move would be fine as well.

The long form "Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie" can be found too; though several sources explaining the abbreviation refer to the proper/fuller form (like [1]). — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.34.66 (talk) at 16:22, 4 December 2023.

@93.221.34.66: Yes, I didn't see any unspaced German uses when I collected the citations I added to Citations:Abh.Berl.Akad., so you may well be right about that. Interestingly, besides the LSJ use, the first three other sources using Abh.Berl.Akad. I found were all typewritten. My guess is that LSJ uses it unspaced to save space (no pun intended), whereas the typewriting authors all considered the spacing in Abh. Berl. Akad. visually excessive. I'm happy with a simple move, just as long we can stick one or more quotations of unspaced uses in the entry so Abh. Berl. Akad. gets picked in the search results for Abh.Berl.Akad.; we can use |termlang=de in the citations I've added for that. 0DF (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that English entries exist at Abh.Berl.Akad. and Abh. Berl. Akad., and a German entry exists at Abh. Berl. Akad., I've deleted the German entry at Abh.Berl.Akad., which was the only one that was subject to this verification request. I suppose that technically makes this RFV failed. 0DF (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–October 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Abh. Berl. Akad.

I dispute the English section. Would a cite like

• 2014, Frederick C. Beiser, The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796-1880, Oxford University Press, USA, →ISBN, page 25:

  The first role became clear with the reaction against psychologistic interpretations of Kant, which began with Hermann Cohen's Kants Theorie der Erfahrung in 1871. […] When, in 1847, Apelt and his fellow editors founded the Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule, they declared the importance of Fries' legacy to consist in his opposition to “Schellingian Neo-Platonism” and “Hegelian scholasticism”, and in his attempt to found philosophy on the methodology of the empirical sciences.

mean Kants Theorie der Erfahrung and Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule were now not only the German but also the English titles of those works? I think not! I do not think that citing, effectively quoting, the German abbreviated form of a title makes it English, either. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Unfortunately, this was the solution insisted upon by 93.221.34.66. See Talk:Abh. Berl. Akad. / Talk:Abh.Berl.Akad. and Citations:Abh.Berl.Akad.. What should be done about Abh.Berl.Akad. if Abh. Berl. Akad. is deleted? 0DF (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect it, if we want to keep it, or even better (now that I think about it), delete it. We don't include full work titles like Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule. We include "ASPCA"-type abbreviations, but for things like "Am. Soc. for Pharmacology", "Am. Soc. for Exp. Path.", "Assoc. of Am. Phys.", "Soc. for Exp. Biol. and Med.", "Am. Soc. for Steel Treating", I think the proper approach is entries for the individual components, not entries like Am. Soc. for Pharmacology or Abh. Berl. Akad.. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Doesn't the fact that Abh.Berl.Akad. is unspaced (in a language that uses spaces) mean that it warrants inclusion? Then Abh. Berl. Akad. would warrant inclusion on the basis of the coal mine test. 0DF (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether parts of a term are delimited by a period/full stop or by a period/full stop + a space is not as important as whether they're delimited at all- it's almost like the difference between one space and two spaces. The coal mine test seems to be more about whether something is delimited at all. I'm also not so sure it's applicable at all to abbreviations. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. With hyphens, too: something like "I'm-going-to-make-you-want-me-until-you-ask-me-home" (or shorter and more common, "let's-do-this") is technically "unspaced", but it'd never survive RFD; the hyphens clarify what the parts to look up individually are as well as spaces would. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, -sche: Please see Citations:AbhBerlAkad for English, German, and Italian citations sans delimiting periods. FWIW, I wasn't the one who created an English entry for Abh.Berl.Akad. and having an English entry for that and/or Abh. Berl. Akad. distinct from a German entry for it/them was not my preference. We have citations of various spellings of this abbreviation in English, German, Italian, and Spanish. In how many languages must there be evidence of use for a term to be considered translingual? 0DF (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@0DF: The coalmine test applies only to English terms that are sometimes written as separate words and sometimes written as a single English word. "AbhBerlAkad" is definitely not a single English word. Even without the dots or spaces, it's still an abbreviation, and I would also contend that it's not English. It's an abbreviation of the German title of a German publication. If it were an abbreviation of something like "Papers of the Berlin Academy", that would be different. As to whether it's translingual: there are are two ways that terms can exist in the text of various languages without being part of those languages: they can be completely independant of any one language, or they can belong to a single language and be mentioned or quoted by others. H²O or Homo sapiens sapiens are translingual. They may be borrowed into a language for some senses, but for the core meaning they're not part of any one language. "Abhandlungen der Berliner Academie" is German, and remains German regardless of the surroundng text. That's the other way: mentions and verbatim quotes in the original language. If I say "We read an excerpt from Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu in French class", that doesn't make "À la recherche du temps perdu" translingual (nor is it English- even though it was mentioned in a Monty Python sketch). I'm sorry if the IP editor from Paderborn gave you a hard time- they're quite knowledgable, but they're also idiosyncratic, opinionated and stubborn. That doesn't mean we should rewrite CFI to suit them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I share the same view as Chuck Entz expressed, and I think we all have the same conviction. Maintaining bibliographic abbreviations is not completely useless. Sometimes an abbreviation is used in a field without it being transparent for outsiders how to resolve it, so the general dictionary can help; also the encyclopedia does but they have often insurmountable relevancy criteria not tailored for mere purposes of merely understanding a denotate. But of all things in a publication, the references are the most likely not to be in the language the publication is written in. IP applied fallacious logics throughout, and attempted to achieve minority domination by sneaking them into new cognitive conflicts we were not provided against because falsehoods are innumerous, that’s how there are always some that stick: → illusory truth effect, → firehose of falsehood.

What is the point of the names of some academic series of books being translated? Like after less than ten clicks on De Gruyter I find “Koloniale und Postkoloniale Linguistik / Colonial and Postcolonial Linguistics (KPL/CPL)”? Because obviously they are in one language otherwise, whether abbreviated or not. But according to IP logics if in a reference in a German opus as well as in an English opus we have this whole string then this whole string, I linked, can have both a German and an English section, and so on for occurrences in French, Persian, Italian, and other texts. Fay Freak (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @-sche, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak: I suggest we have a German entry for Abh. Berl. Akad. with redirects to it from Abh.Berl.Akad. and AbhBerlAkad, with a usage note in that entry stating that the abbreviation is also used in other languages, in which cases the Paderborner's asserted proscription in German against spaceless abbreviations like Abh.Berl.Akad. is sometimes not observed. Would you all be happy with that resolution? It would, in my opinion, be the most accurate way of describing actual usage. 0DF (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak: I hope that none of you will object to my presumption in interpretting the foregoing deafening silence as a mark of your enthusiastic and unanimous assent. I have made the changes I described; now the entry looks like this. Please let me know if you are unhappy with it in its present form. 0DF (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm (still) inclined to delete this, and the German entry as well. We seem to generally not have modern book, journal, magazine, etc titles, nor their short forms; we don't have Philosopher's Stone as a common short form of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, we specifically RFD-deleted HP1 (we also deleted Liber AL vel Legis) ... and I would not, personally, consider a few people typoing or ineptly writing Philosopher'sStone to abruptly make Philosopher's Stone includable. So it's still a delete from me. Other people may reach different conclusions (as WT:NSE says, there's no overarching agreement on things like this, so it comes down to case-by-case RFDs). - -sche (discuss) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Well, in favour of keeping this, I'll say that it was quite difficult to work out what exactly this abbreviation refers to, and that I'm sure others will be puzzled by it and will want to know what it means; our entry could well save others the trouble I had. With a view to preserving that usefulness somewhere, I've spruced up the German entries for Abh., Berl., und Akad. If the entry for Abh. Berl. Akad. is indeed deleted, I'll triplicate the quotations in Citations:Abh. Berl. Akad. at Citations:Abh., Citations:Berl., and Citations:Akad. and add some to their respective entries, in the hope that this will catch searches for the various forms. The etymological note (“Strictly speaking, an abbreviation of the informal shorthand form Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie [‘Treatises of the Berlin Academy’]. There is considerable historical variation in the way writers referred to the Academy and to its periodical.”) and usage note (“German orthography prescribes that, in an abbreviated phrase, spacing be retained between each abbreviated word and the next; that regulation is almost universally observed wherever Abh. Berl. Akad. occurs in German texts. Other languages are less observant of this rule, however, with divergent forms such as AbhBerlAkad. [Italian] and Abh.Berl.Akad. [English and Spanish] occasionally occurring.”) will be lost if Abh. Berl. Akad. is deleted, perhaps to the anonymous Paderborner's chagrin, but hell, at least I tried to accommodate his/her concerns. 0DF (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• 0DF deleted the English entries for the main and unspaced forms back in April (turning the latter into a hard redirect). This seems to fit the consensus (and my opinion), so after several months with no objections I'm closing this discussion. The German entry should probably also be removed, but this is RFDE. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 06:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)