Talk:curvar-se
Add topicLatest comment: 26 days ago by AG202 in topic RFD discussion: May 2022–February 2025
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Portuguese. Reflexive form of curvar. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Question. We have quite a few such lemmas, such as dobrar-se, endireitar-se, prostrar-se. Should these all be deleted, or is there some deletion rationale that applies specifically to curvar-se? --Lambiam
- @Lambiam. Sorry, I didn't noticed the question sooner. I do think that if one is deleted, all of them should. But maybe we should open a different discussion to fully set what policy should be set? - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1. See a similar issue below for Italian: § essersi. I suppose a general discussion can be held on when to include and when not to include such cliticized forms. For a mesoclitic, see § gözlenebilmek. I see that Spanish reflexive verbs such as inclinarse are listed, but not as lemmas but as verb forms. --Lambiam 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam. Sorry, I didn't noticed the question sooner. I do think that if one is deleted, all of them should. But maybe we should open a different discussion to fully set what policy should be set? - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete this and the other Portuguese entries like it. Ultimateria (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Whatever we choose should match how we treat -rse verbs in Spanish. It's wildly inconsistent to delete curvar-se and others like it while leaving curvarse untouched. MedK1 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: While I agree it's not relevant to document all reflexive forms of Portuguese verbs, some of them (curvar-se and prostrar-se listed above, as well as others like tornar-se, desculpar-se, vir-se, importar-se, etc.) have specific meanings that are quite distinct from those of the corresponding base form, and therefore would benefit from stand-alone entries. In some cases the reflexive form is even the main one (e.g. suicidar-se or aperceber-se). Besides, I agree with the others above in that a any deletion should be accompanied by a consistent approach across all Portuguese reflexive forms, as well as their close equivalents in e.g. Spanish. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- By which I mean, delete this and all other Portuguese entries like it. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
RFD-deleted. Although this does bring into question verbs like dobrar-se that were brought up above.Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)- @Imetsia: It's generally frowned upon to vote "delete" on an entry and then delete in the same action. (no time passed) I agree with previous comments that there should be more discussion around this entry and others like it, and would highly suggest undeleting the entry until there's more consensus. AG202 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for speaking up, @AG202. I agree on all counts. --Waldyrious (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- There would have been a 2-1 consensus for deletion even without my vote (counting the nominator), and I don't agree that it's "generally frowned upon" to vote and delete in one fell swoop. This nomination has been pending for two years with minimal discussion, and we cannot allow nominations to stagnate and clutter RFD for such extended periods. I am willing to reopen the discussion and undelete the entry, but only if there is a concrete possibility of generating more meaningful discussion on this nomination. Imetsia (talk (more)) 00:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even barring the issue of voting and deleting (I can look for prior comments on the matter later), I wouldn't have closed the discussion with comments like MedK1's & Lambiam's left unresolved. There should be a bigger discussion at somewhere like Beer Parlour before deletion, so yes, I'm requesting that the discussion be reopened and the entry be undeleted. AG202 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seconded. Even the proponent acknowledged the potential need of a wider discussion to address the topic with the breadth it required. If anything, the RfD could have been closed as no consensus. Waldyrious (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even barring the issue of voting and deleting (I can look for prior comments on the matter later), I wouldn't have closed the discussion with comments like MedK1's & Lambiam's left unresolved. There should be a bigger discussion at somewhere like Beer Parlour before deletion, so yes, I'm requesting that the discussion be reopened and the entry be undeleted. AG202 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- There would have been a 2-1 consensus for deletion even without my vote (counting the nominator), and I don't agree that it's "generally frowned upon" to vote and delete in one fell swoop. This nomination has been pending for two years with minimal discussion, and we cannot allow nominations to stagnate and clutter RFD for such extended periods. I am willing to reopen the discussion and undelete the entry, but only if there is a concrete possibility of generating more meaningful discussion on this nomination. Imetsia (talk (more)) 00:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for speaking up, @AG202. I agree on all counts. --Waldyrious (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Imetsia: It's generally frowned upon to vote "delete" on an entry and then delete in the same action. (no time passed) I agree with previous comments that there should be more discussion around this entry and others like it, and would highly suggest undeleting the entry until there's more consensus. AG202 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- RFD-reopened. Hopefully this will generate more discussion around this nomination. Otherwise, we will be back to the same place a few months from now, with the same closing decision hanging in the balance. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, along with all the other verbs. Even for verbs that are mainly reflexive, like suicidar-se, the choice of enclisis isn't any more important than that of proclisis, putting aside how the former makes an unspaced form. Polomo47 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- IMHO it's perfectly in line with Wiktionary's current practices to have both the enclitic and the proclitic forms, with one of them marked as
{{alternative form of}}the other. --Waldyrious (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- (about Portuguese) The thing is that both the enclitic and proclitic forms are SoPs using se. No one argues for proclisis because that gets a space, but enclisis instead gets a hyphen. That doesn't make it any less SoP, though. Polomo47 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would things be different if the forms were simply affixed as is the case with Spanish or Italian? IMHO the decision about having a dedicated page for them should rest primarily on whether they have specific meanings that differ from a mere reflexive of the main verb (which I'd argue makes them non-SoP anyway), or are more prominent in real-world usage than the base form, moreso than whether the written manifestation happens to follow a given graphical pattern. Waldyrious (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm requesting merge/deletion because the words don't have any additional meaning. It's just the verb plus an object, and it just so happens the verb can only take one form of object (the reflexive). Indeed, terms like curvar-se have arguably less real-word usage than se curvar: it only gets listed because it happens to follow a given graphical pattern. Polomo47 (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- A similar argument could well be made for Spanish and Italian, but it's less clear-cut because their forms are single-word. Nevertheless, the argument is still valid, and I'd love to see this discussion. My current proposal is just for Portuguese because the path to take is nearly obvious in that language. Polomo47 (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. Spanish is a different case because it'd fall under our rules to keep unspaced compounds like that (cf. WT:COALMINE). AG202 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- A similar argument could well be made for Spanish and Italian, but it's less clear-cut because their forms are single-word. Nevertheless, the argument is still valid, and I'd love to see this discussion. My current proposal is just for Portuguese because the path to take is nearly obvious in that language. Polomo47 (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm requesting merge/deletion because the words don't have any additional meaning. It's just the verb plus an object, and it just so happens the verb can only take one form of object (the reflexive). Indeed, terms like curvar-se have arguably less real-word usage than se curvar: it only gets listed because it happens to follow a given graphical pattern. Polomo47 (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would things be different if the forms were simply affixed as is the case with Spanish or Italian? IMHO the decision about having a dedicated page for them should rest primarily on whether they have specific meanings that differ from a mere reflexive of the main verb (which I'd argue makes them non-SoP anyway), or are more prominent in real-world usage than the base form, moreso than whether the written manifestation happens to follow a given graphical pattern. Waldyrious (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- (about Portuguese) The thing is that both the enclitic and proclitic forms are SoPs using se. No one argues for proclisis because that gets a space, but enclisis instead gets a hyphen. That doesn't make it any less SoP, though. Polomo47 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- IMHO it's perfectly in line with Wiktionary's current practices to have both the enclitic and the proclitic forms, with one of them marked as
- Delete it and all other pronominal verb entries, since they implicitly prescribe enclisis. Davi6596 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to reinforce the need to address the question raised above by Lambiam and MedK1, of how the decision for Portuguese verbs should apply to entries of similar nature in other languages, in particular the Romance ones like Spanish and Italian. --Waldyrious (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to curvar. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted this and similar -se entries. Looks like I was right to close this discussion eight months ago, as the result is the same today. Imetsia (talk (more)) 18:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- And it was still good to get other opinions and it's since sparked further discussions in detail about what to do about these entries in general, which was part of my point. If not, more RFDs would've popped up on the same topic without needed discussion. There's no harm in waiting for more comments, so I'm a bit surprised by the attitude. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- For archiving purposes: this discussion staying open led to Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits § Portuguese reflexive forms, which led to further discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/December § Romance languages: reflexive verb forms and enclisis, which you did not participate in even though you were tagged in the latter. I cared less about the entry being deleted and more about actually having discussion about what to do next. AG202 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- And it was still good to get other opinions and it's since sparked further discussions in detail about what to do about these entries in general, which was part of my point. If not, more RFDs would've popped up on the same topic without needed discussion. There's no harm in waiting for more comments, so I'm a bit surprised by the attitude. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)