Talk:arno-
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by Chuck Entz in topic RFV discussion: August 2015–January 2016
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
English. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: with the removal of "well-known work" as part of CFI, more than just nonce words are to be arnosacrificated. Choor monster (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Does this occur in a well-known work? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- See the citation. I personally consider all of Pynchon "well-known", but I'm presumably in the minority there. When I added princessipality, I did so confident that the one Pynchon citation was sufficient, the others I found were bonuses. I'll point out his WP article is a level-4 vital article. (Shakespeare and Joyce are level-3.) I note that Hugo and Proust are level-4, do we RFV le mot de Cambronne? Choor monster (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Even if being in a single well-known were still sufficient (and it isn't), that cite would be for arnophilia, not for the combining stem arno-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, when I added this I considered that ‘arnophilia’ was too rare (it's Pynchon's own coinage), but that perhaps it counted as evidence towards the prefix. Though even that seems quite uncommon. There are some web hits for ‘arnophobia’, ‘arnomorphic’ and similar one-offs, but perhaps nothing durably archived. Still, it seems a shame to remove what appears to be helpful information. Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The web hits I got were actually for (deprecated template usage) carno- or plain old scannos. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Pynchon and if it's 2006 it's not like I wasn't born or anything. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- The web hits I got were actually for (deprecated template usage) carno- or plain old scannos. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, when I added this I considered that ‘arnophilia’ was too rare (it's Pynchon's own coinage), but that perhaps it counted as evidence towards the prefix. Though even that seems quite uncommon. There are some web hits for ‘arnophobia’, ‘arnomorphic’ and similar one-offs, but perhaps nothing durably archived. Still, it seems a shame to remove what appears to be helpful information. Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Even if being in a single well-known were still sufficient (and it isn't), that cite would be for arnophilia, not for the combining stem arno-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- See the citation. I personally consider all of Pynchon "well-known", but I'm presumably in the minority there. When I added princessipality, I did so confident that the one Pynchon citation was sufficient, the others I found were bonuses. I'll point out his WP article is a level-4 vital article. (Shakespeare and Joyce are level-3.) I note that Hugo and Proust are level-4, do we RFV le mot de Cambronne? Choor monster (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Does this occur in a well-known work? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Even the Pynchon citation is very mentiony, immediately followed by a definition, comparable to a lot of "phobia" citations that are just long-form wordlists. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any such comparison. Pynchon's is a fairly standard use and mention, making good sense if the definition part is omitted and you know the coinage. The wordlists with definitions are nothing but mention. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think three once-attested nonce words using arno- should be sufficient to attest that it has been or is productive and is included, though it may merit rare and literary labels. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think three once-attested nonce words using arno- should be sufficient to attest that it has been or is productive and is included, though it may merit rare and literary labels. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any such comparison. Pynchon's is a fairly standard use and mention, making good sense if the definition part is omitted and you know the coinage. The wordlists with definitions are nothing but mention. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- RFV failed, although I must add that Pynchon is undoubtably deserving of well-known work status, were it to remain in the CFI. (And those who deny it are self-evidently uncultured swine.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- On the citations page, we have two words using this suffix: arnomancy (from a low-quality source which is just listing a bunch of -mancies), and arnophilia (from Pynchon). I can also find:
- 1657, Jean de Renou, A Medicinal Dispensatory, page 595:
- The Neotericks have retained the old description, but not the name of these Pills: for Mesue their Author calls them [...] Pills of Cynogloss, which is neither for quantity nor quality prepollent therein : perhaps they mistake Cynogloss for Arnogloss, […]
- This may mean Plantago lanceolata, which is called "lamb's tongue". (Given the date, it can't mean Arnoglossum, and from context it seems to not mean Arnoglossus.) Is this sufficient? @DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Given Arnoglossum/Arnoglossus, Arnoseris, and possibly Arnocrinum(?), does this meet CFI as a Latin prefix? - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- It should stay RFV failed, by my lights. I do not see CFI-attested terms containing the prefix. Later: my bad: yes, the English prefix should stay deleted, but Latin prefix may be a different story if the above listed Arnoglossum, Arnoseris, Arnocrinum are attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not. Arnoglossum is just the Latinization of ἀρνόγλωσσον (arnóglōsson), which looks to me like a compound of ἀρνός (arnós, “lamb”) and γλῶσσα (glôssa, “tongue”). Not only is Arnoglossum borrowed whole, but I'm not convinced that the first part is a prefix in either language. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)