Talk:address with the formal pronoun
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFD discussion: August 2018–February 2019
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about teacher's desk in a classroom; do we allow that kind of titles for translation hubs?
Anyway, I think we can use you and thou (the verb sections) instead. Per utramque cavernam 16:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- The verb entry at you is a good place for this, and anyway already has more translations. No reason to keep this, so move whatever translations necessary over to you (verb) and delete.
- It admittedly is complicated by the fact that "you" is both formal and informal in English now, but I don't think that is a reason not to use this attestable verb form as the translation hub instead of this wordy entry. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. The content looks fine, but it needs to go under an entry title that people would actually search for. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link... I bet nobody has said you#verb for 200 years 83.216.95.101 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a good point. Whatever we do, entries like vouvoyer and ustedear should link to the entry that houses all the translations. My inclination is to
deletethis entry and centralize the translations at you, though I'm open to hearing arguments for why we should have this translation hub instead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Struck vote – see below.
- Delete, after moving any useful content. Update entries in other languages to link to you#Verb, per Granger. - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep until someone shows that you as a verb has attesting quotations and is actually used. I checked M-W and AHD online and they did not have "you" in a verb sense. I am sorry if the use of you as a verb is very obvious to native speakers; to me, it is not. I checked youing,youed at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. and there "youed" is not found at all while Czech vykal, past tense of vykat, is easily and plentifully attested. A related RFM discussion is at Talk:address with the polite V-form, where Angr (now Mahagaja) says "I think English really doesn't have a word for this, even when talking about other languages". If it is true that you (verb) is attested and is obsolete, I doubt we are doing a service to the reader by using that as the translation hub. A relevant article is W:T–V distinction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per ...? Do we allow that kind of titles? Per utramque cavernam 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since the entry title is unattested on Google Books, I've RFV'ed it. I've also RFV'ed the verb sense of you to make you happy. Per utramque cavernam 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per ...? Do we allow that kind of titles? Per utramque cavernam 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Dan; the verb you does not seem current. "... not to be misled by a pestilent way that he has of youing me, ..."
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dan Polansky makes a good point. I'm changing my vote to neutral on whether to centralize the translations here or at you. Since both entries have been taken to RFV, the outcome there may answer the question for us. One way or another, we should centralize the translations in one place and make sure entries like ustedear point to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given the attestation requirement, one solution could be to move the entry to address with the V-form or use the V-form, whichever is easier to attest. I added some quotations to V-form and T-form to show V-form and T-form are attested in the first place. One of the quotations them has "to use the T-form" and "address their parents with the V-form", but we would need more quotations showing combinations with verbs. Now as before, I find you (verb) to be unsatisfactory as the translation hub. Now, "address with the V-form" may not be particularly common either, but at least the non-native reader can see something strange is going on, which they would not see if the normal-looking English you appeared on the definition line of e.g. German siezen; currently, German siezen definition line does not link to you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- We can perfectly gloss the various foreign terms with "address with the V-form", "address using the formal pronoun", "use the V-form" or whatever will make it clear what is meant; we can write to "you" with quote marks to indicate that the verb is not in common use (compare French déconner, sense 3), so that "the non-native reader can see something strange is going on". And we can do all that without having an actual entry at a weird-ass title, by centralizing the translations at you. I really don't understand the compulsion to create an entry that nobody is going to look for directly. Per utramque cavernam 12:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, I agree with the IP: the most probable scenario is that someone will look for a foreign language entry, and click on whatever link we've given there. Per utramque cavernam 12:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Whether someone is going to look up a term like address with the V-form directly is not so important with translation hubs, as follows from the hub logic; as anon says above, "I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link", and I, being a Czech speaker, would start at vykat. It seems improper to me to offer you as a translation in Czech vykat, but not so with address with the V-form; the definition line should have a most useful and functionally adequate translation, not one that is there artificially only so that a sum of parts entry can be deleted. Therefore, diff made vouvoyer worse, misleading the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dan Polansky: Upon reflection, I agree that you is not a good translation (nor a good translation hub), and have edited the entry.
- I still don't think cluttering the mainspace with entries such as "address using the formal pronoun" or "address with the formal pronoun" is a good idea. What happened of the first THUB provision: "The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify"?
- I propose we create an appendix on the V-form / T-form, and put the translations there. Per utramque cavernam 10:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- The basic problem is that this is a completely foreign concept to modern English: we lost our informal pronouns centuries ago, and they've become associated with archaic speech, so they feel vaguely formal. Besides, indicating relative status isn't necessarily done with pronouns- particles and verb endings are two methods that come to mind, not to mention a whole range of all types of synonyms that line up with one register or another. In some South American Indian languages it's a really big deal whether you experienced something personally or heard about it secondhand- there are a whole set of different grammatical forms based on that distinction. Or how about inclusive vs. exclusive first- and second-person pronouns?
- Whether you put it in mainspace or somewhere else, a translation hub is more like an appendix or a footnote rather than an entry- it's not really English, though it claims to be, it violates the spelling-first organization of the dictionary as a whole, and being based on a concept rather than a specific term in a specific language makes it rather encyclopedic. Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it to be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: Re "Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it [to?] be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code": exactly. I've slightly edited my previous message btw. Per utramque cavernam 13:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was just about to fix the missing "to" when you posted your reply. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: Re "Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it [to?] be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code": exactly. I've slightly edited my previous message btw. Per utramque cavernam 13:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Whether someone is going to look up a term like address with the V-form directly is not so important with translation hubs, as follows from the hub logic; as anon says above, "I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link", and I, being a Czech speaker, would start at vykat. It seems improper to me to offer you as a translation in Czech vykat, but not so with address with the V-form; the definition line should have a most useful and functionally adequate translation, not one that is there artificially only so that a sum of parts entry can be deleted. Therefore, diff made vouvoyer worse, misleading the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given the attestation requirement, one solution could be to move the entry to address with the V-form or use the V-form, whichever is easier to attest. I added some quotations to V-form and T-form to show V-form and T-form are attested in the first place. One of the quotations them has "to use the T-form" and "address their parents with the V-form", but we would need more quotations showing combinations with verbs. Now as before, I find you (verb) to be unsatisfactory as the translation hub. Now, "address with the V-form" may not be particularly common either, but at least the non-native reader can see something strange is going on, which they would not see if the normal-looking English you appeared on the definition line of e.g. German siezen; currently, German siezen definition line does not link to you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can attest address with the formal pronoun, "with" rather than "using":
- "she addresses him with the formal pronoun and even the title her Parzival", Myers 2003
- "He had a completely different life-style from theirs, addressing his school-fellows ... with the formal pronoun “Sie”; which created a barrier.", Kanterian 2007
- "Theresa consistently addressed the students with the formal pronoun and while most students employed the informal pronoun in return, ...", Magnan 2008
- --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#you confirms that the quotations currently placed at you#Verb are weak as for the intended sense; quoting Stelio: 'None of them [the quotations] are doing so "rather than thou"'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I moved the entry to address with the formal pronoun to prevent RFV-deletion and I created the original entry as alternative form so that it can be deleted via a failed RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)