Talk:Nadsat
Add topicLatest comment: 6 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: February–March 2018
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
The provided quotations do not seem to comply with the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Fictional universes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, based on a text search I did on the version of the book in Archive.org, the word Nadsat does not appear to be used in the book A Clockwork Orange to refer to the language, which means that the use of the word as the name of the language is not an in-universe thing at all. In the book, nadsat is used to refer to the teenage protagonists. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- How about this for a cite? The author uses the word "Nadsat" without mentioning A Clockwork Orange. Khemehekis (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- True, although the newsgroup is alt.movies.kubrick, so it is presumably assuming readers understand the word from the Kubrick movie "A Clockword Orange." Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would consider that quote to pass WT:FICTION; the immediate context is independent of the fictional world. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Given SGconlaw's point that in the book, nadsat refers to the teens, not to the language, I have trimmed the citations on the page to those that clearly refer to the language, and moved the others to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would consider that quote to pass WT:FICTION; the immediate context is independent of the fictional world. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- True, although the newsgroup is alt.movies.kubrick, so it is presumably assuming readers understand the word from the Kubrick movie "A Clockword Orange." Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (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.
On the first quotation, it says: "[1962,". Can someone please fix this? I tried to but I can't find out how it happened. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Quite straightforwardly, the brackets went away when I got rid of the parameter
brackets=on. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)- @PseudoSkull, Metaknowledge: I had put the quotation in brackets because that quotation isn't really a proper noun use of the word, is it? The reference to "nadsat talk" means "talk used by nadsats [teenagers]". From what I could tell following a search in the version of the book on Archive.org, Burgess never used Nadsat as the name of the language as such in the book. Also, any idea why we have both Appendix:A Clockwork Orange and Concordance:Nadsat lexicon? Is one of them redundant? — SGconlaw (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Good point, I didn't actually read the quote. You're right; it seems to be the same casual misreading that led to the semantic shift of droog. In a case like that, we should remove the quote rather than bracketing it, which is opaque and confuses not only readers, but editors as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think the quotation is useful in illustrating the history of the term, but that's why it was in brackets. It adds additional information to the entry but is not an example of the use of the term in context. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw It could be added to the etymology section.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw It could be added to the etymology section.
- I think the quotation is useful in illustrating the history of the term, but that's why it was in brackets. It adds additional information to the entry but is not an example of the use of the term in context. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Good point, I didn't actually read the quote. You're right; it seems to be the same casual misreading that led to the semantic shift of droog. In a case like that, we should remove the quote rather than bracketing it, which is opaque and confuses not only readers, but editors as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @PseudoSkull, Metaknowledge: I had put the quotation in brackets because that quotation isn't really a proper noun use of the word, is it? The reference to "nadsat talk" means "talk used by nadsats [teenagers]". From what I could tell following a search in the version of the book on Archive.org, Burgess never used Nadsat as the name of the language as such in the book. Also, any idea why we have both Appendix:A Clockwork Orange and Concordance:Nadsat lexicon? Is one of them redundant? — SGconlaw (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)