Talk:Picelemu

This seems to be a new invention. I don't think this article should exist. 188.23.250.109 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Picelemu

This seems to be an Old English name of a city in South America (Pichilemu). This will be difficult to attest. --MaEr (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not RFV. I believe that Old English written by non-native speakers can still meet WT:CFI in the same way that we have entries in Category:New Latin. However, it's a fair guess that this one is Wikipedia-only, and therefore not attested. But who knows, let's try! Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This cannot possibly pass CFI, which says: For terms in extinct languages: usage in at least one contemporaneous source. -- Liliana • 19:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes me wonder if there is such a thing as "New Old English"? I.e., is there enough of a community of people trying to communicate in Old English (and backported Old-English-esque coinages) that it would make sense to create an appendix? (Just curious how this would work, not actually pushing for anything either way.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing, to be honest. -- Liliana • 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything specific to such "new" Old English, but there are the folks trying to bring Cornish back, for an example of people reviving an extinct language, or the Klingon community, for an example of a language under construction. I noticed we have Appendix:Klingon when I went looking for Appendix:New Old English (just in case). -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

@Liliana-60, hmm, I'd assume that for dead languages, texts written in the language by non-native speakers which are nevertheless durably archived count. For example I added a 1994 citation to Pakistania from the Vatican website. Reading the definition of contemporaneous doesn't seem to rule this out. And I don't see how we can have one rule for Latin and another for every other dead language. Of course we're very pro New Latin terms that are used as species epithets, as they are used in actual texts (though usually not in Latin). @Eirikr, the Old English Wikiprojects, that's all I can think of. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin is still an official language in Vatican City, so on that basis modern terms could be cited, I suppose. Old English isn't official or even in common usage anywhere. -- Liliana • 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a bit weird if we were to cite an Old English term on Usenet, but as far as I can see, nothing rules it out as dead languages can still be used, albeit by definition, only by non-native speakers. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Does that make them undead languages, until such time as someone raises their kids speaking it as their first tongue? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to think that Liliana-60 once said about Manx, that although it was a dead language for a period because it had no native speakers, even during this time it had fluent speakers. So a dead language doesn't necessarily imply that it has no fluent speakers. And surely a book written by a fluent speaker and published by whoever would count for WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. FWIW, I agree with Mglovesfun that terms from an extinct language can still be cited using any of the mechanisms we allow for terms from living languages, so "keep+RFV" would definitely be reasonable; but since it's a place-name, and we don't have a policy of including all place-names even if cited, RFD is also a valid place to decide to delete this. —Ruakh_TALK 22:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep in RFD, move to RFV if wished. The nominated term consist of a single word. No reason for deletion relating to RFD has been stated, other than dislike of inclusion of geographic names, which we widely include. The nominator doubts that the term is attested, which is a matter for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a related question: if I want to add (deprecated template usage) hamaxostichus in Latin, will a citation from the Latin translation of Harry Potter be acceptable? Is that New Latin? Does it need a special usage note? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a Latin edition of Harry Potter? Wat... - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure if we could call that "contemporaneous"... -- Liliana • 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC) (addendum: but if you find three citations, as Ruakh says, my point is moot.)

With masterful scrounging, I might be able to rustle up two citations, but I'm pretty sure that's the limit. Very little is printed in Latin these days, but if "these days" = "contemporaneous", it's in the clear. However, if Pakistania counts, I can't see how this wouldn't. And yes, it is the first book: Harrius Potter et Lapis Philosophi (my summer reading to practice my Latin!) and of course, it mentions the Hamaxostichus Hogwartsiensis. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)