Talk:Scheißhandy
Add topicLatest comment: 2 years ago by Fytcha in topic RFD discussion: March–June 2022
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.
German. SOP. --2003:E3:B702:EA54:A13C:2731:50E1:EC2C 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Thadh (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not aware of a single closed compound being deleted for being SOP; WT:SOP applies to multi-term expressions and spaced/hyphenated compounds, never has it applied to closed compounds (otherwise, how would WT:COALMINE make sense?). See Wiktionary:About_German#Criteria_for_inclusion for our overwhelming precedent on this wrt German. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a compound though, it's a bound morpheme and a free morpheme together. Thadh (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Thadh: Just like most plurals and conjugations in most languages. Right, not a compound, but the point still stands that we very rarely delete entries without spaces/hyphens/... for being SOP, and the rare exceptions (Latin -que, Turkish predicatives) are always limitlessly productive and predictable which isn't the case for scheiß-. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- How is scheiß- not limitlessly productive? Scheißfreund, Scheißmensch, scheißeuropäische Vielfalt, what exactly can't be used with this prefix? Thadh (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- This concerns one meaning at least. I have also argued sufficiently in the past that the separate spelling is the more natural one (in August when this cantankerous IP created this entry). This is the one that is an adjective, and another is a compound stressed differently: Ein scheiß Hándy (one of annoying properties) and ein Schéißhandy (one good enough to scroll while dropping a chalupa), though this be often impossible to distinguish (from writing, also the first may be stressed like the second for emphasis the same way as einen gróßen Teller, keinen kléinen Teller; really many ways to get confused) – perhaps the reason why the prescriptive standard writes all together. So if we distinguish we might want to only delete the first or replace it with
{{&lit}}and keep the second as is. So we retain it anyway for clarification. Fay Freak (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- This concerns one meaning at least. I have also argued sufficiently in the past that the separate spelling is the more natural one (in August when this cantankerous IP created this entry). This is the one that is an adjective, and another is a compound stressed differently: Ein scheiß Hándy (one of annoying properties) and ein Schéißhandy (one good enough to scroll while dropping a chalupa), though this be often impossible to distinguish (from writing, also the first may be stressed like the second for emphasis the same way as einen gróßen Teller, keinen kléinen Teller; really many ways to get confused) – perhaps the reason why the prescriptive standard writes all together. So if we distinguish we might want to only delete the first or replace it with
- How is scheiß- not limitlessly productive? Scheißfreund, Scheißmensch, scheißeuropäische Vielfalt, what exactly can't be used with this prefix? Thadh (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Thadh: Just like most plurals and conjugations in most languages. Right, not a compound, but the point still stands that we very rarely delete entries without spaces/hyphens/... for being SOP, and the rare exceptions (Latin -que, Turkish predicatives) are always limitlessly productive and predictable which isn't the case for scheiß-. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a compound though, it's a bound morpheme and a free morpheme together. Thadh (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. --學者三 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
RFD-kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)