Talk:Wünsch
Add topicLatest comment: 6 years ago by Korn in topic RFV discussion: December 2017–May 2018
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Is this an erroneous entry created by a non-native speaker who simply made a a back-formation of the plural "Wünsche" of the noun "Wunsch"? Or is it some archaic form of "Wunsch"? In this case, please add quotations to prove that it exists. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Maybe automation gone wrong. – Jberkel (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- By version history it wasn't bot-created, but it appears to be created in error (wrong back-formation). However, it could also be an alternative form, be it an old singular *Wünsch or an apocopated plural *Wünsch (in which case the entry would have to be changed).
- [1]: "[...] zeigen genugsam deine Klagen, deine Lästerungen, deine Wünsch, und Fluchreden, so du so gar [...]" --- 1. title of the work (as it can't be properly seen on google and as title iven by google aren't always correct)?; 2. is it an apocopated plural (and if so, of Wunsch or Wünsch?) or an old form for "Wünsch-" (like as short form for "Wünschreden" similar to "Sonn- und Feiertage" = "Sonntage und Feiertage")?
- [2]: "Auf daß aber deine Wünsch nicht leer abgehen" (apocopated plural)
- [3]: "Denn ich auch ehre ja deine Wünsch' alle." (apocopated plural, but with apostrophe to denote apocope)
- [4]: "Also ist der Wünsch, den Herodes gehabt, [...] Und diese Wünsche [...] Nach dem Wünsch der unmöglichen Sachen [...]" (old singular Wünsch with plural Wünsche)
- Note that there is also a proper noun "Wünsch" (maybe cp. wp). Attestation (WT:CFI) requires three cites for each form and maybe they can be found. In any case this is WT:RFVN (maybe cp. the intro) and not vote-based WT:RFDN. -84.161.3.15 10:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Entries can get created automatically without bots. I think in this case it's quite obvious that it was created in error. – Jberkel (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I too think it was created in error, but I wouldn't think it was created automatically. And the least that should be done when deleting an RFVed term out of process should be (a) to do a (short) google book search and (b) to not close the RFV until the required time has passed. Thus, if the term gets attested at the RFV page, the entry has to be restored and the citations added.
Anyhow, the entry Wünsch now has two cites for Wünsch with plural Wünsche and two cites for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch. That should be enough to have an ordinary RFV to find a third cite. (Wünsch' would be another term.)- [5] page 207 [Note besides the singular Wünsch the text elsewhere also has singular wunsch (p. 108, p. 250b)]: "Wie laut die bitte und der Wünsch?" --- this could be a third cite for singular Wünsch but title of the work?
- [6] --- another 3rd cite with singular Wünsch and plural Wünsch; but text is Italian and German while title at google books is only Italian, which could mean that google misses a second title page or misplaced it
- [7] --- a 3rd 3rd cite, but might be doubtful
- [8] and [9] --- further cites
- Entry now has 3 cites for singular Wünsch, thus this word is attested. The three cites are related to Cöllen, which could be by accident or be older 'Kölsch'.
- -84.161.3.15 14:41-16:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I guess anything can be cited if you search long enough in old texts, if it's still a useful entry is another question. It should get labeled as obsolete / rare, otherwise will be misleading. – Jberkel 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that anything can.
I was just about to add something related to that as I was going to add this:
Entry now also has 3 cites for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch, thus it's attested too. So it could be discrimination time. Wünsch (as plural of Wunsch) could now be archaic or poetic, colloquial, dialectal. Wünsch as singular could be archaic or maybe dialectal.
Wünsch as singular could also be rare, but I don't think that Wünsch as plural of Wunsch is, though "now rare" or maybe "now rare in writting" could apply. -84.161.3.15 16:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)- If the newest citation you can come up with is more than 250 years old, then it is not "now rare" but rather "now not used at all" --Bruno413 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- There could be younger usages for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch, and I did assume there are. I restricted the google results and didn't bother to look for younger usages. With different restrictions, I found Wünsch (as plural of Wunsch) once in the late 19th century. However it seems that Wünsch (plural of Wunsch) was uncommon in the 19th century with Wünsch' being commonly used. As for 20th century usages: dunno. As for 21st century usages: I found it once in an e-book text at gb, once in a gb preview of which I can't see the actual text, and once in a dialectal quote (which also has "Dass") of which I can't really see the context. -84.161.3.15 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know that there is usage of "Wünsch" as a contraction of "Wünsche" (plural of "Wunsch"), but this is about the word "Wünsch" in singular, which is, as far as the citations attest, obsolete or archaic, and should be labeled and categorized as such. --Bruno413 (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- My posts where about both, and the passage quoted was about Wünsch (plural of Wunsch).
As for Wünsch (singular): I tried to find the Kölsch word for Wunsch or wish but didn't have any luck. (Kölsch examples with the plural aren't helpful; www.woerterbuchnetz.de/RhWB?lemma=wunsch at best has "Klevld wønts"; Höning's Wörterbuch der Kölner Mundart doesn't have a term like WVn* (V for vowel, * as wildcard) meaning Wunsch or wish.) Feel free to assume that Wünsch (singular) isn't used anymore, not even in dialects. -84.161.10.69 10:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- My posts where about both, and the passage quoted was about Wünsch (plural of Wunsch).
- I know that there is usage of "Wünsch" as a contraction of "Wünsche" (plural of "Wunsch"), but this is about the word "Wünsch" in singular, which is, as far as the citations attest, obsolete or archaic, and should be labeled and categorized as such. --Bruno413 (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- There could be younger usages for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch, and I did assume there are. I restricted the google results and didn't bother to look for younger usages. With different restrictions, I found Wünsch (as plural of Wunsch) once in the late 19th century. However it seems that Wünsch (plural of Wunsch) was uncommon in the 19th century with Wünsch' being commonly used. As for 20th century usages: dunno. As for 21st century usages: I found it once in an e-book text at gb, once in a gb preview of which I can't see the actual text, and once in a dialectal quote (which also has "Dass") of which I can't really see the context. -84.161.3.15 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- If the newest citation you can come up with is more than 250 years old, then it is not "now rare" but rather "now not used at all" --Bruno413 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that anything can.
- I guess anything can be cited if you search long enough in old texts, if it's still a useful entry is another question. It should get labeled as obsolete / rare, otherwise will be misleading. – Jberkel 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I too think it was created in error, but I wouldn't think it was created automatically. And the least that should be done when deleting an RFVed term out of process should be (a) to do a (short) google book search and (b) to not close the RFV until the required time has passed. Thus, if the term gets attested at the RFV page, the entry has to be restored and the citations added.
- Entries can get created automatically without bots. I think in this case it's quite obvious that it was created in error. – Jberkel (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- By version history it wasn't bot-created, but it appears to be created in error (wrong back-formation). However, it could also be an alternative form, be it an old singular *Wünsch or an apocopated plural *Wünsch (in which case the entry would have to be changed).
Striking. Three cites have been provided, even if they couldn't clean out all doubts. The plural is unquestionably common as a poetic short form, the singular is beyond doubt obsolete and the dialects our ever so very very speculative IP-user mentions are not covered by the language code de. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)