Talk:ich

RFV

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

Rfv-sense: English, "(obsolete) I." -- Prince Kassad 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am certain this exists, but it must be very old; maybe Widsith can help. It is British and related to the old dialect (deprecated template usage) che (which we are missing), e.g. "che vor ye" (I warn you) in King Lear. Chambers has related forms like chave (I have) and cham (I am). Equinox ◑ 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

B.g.c. abounds in Middle English cites — see e.g. google books:"ich am" and "ich habbe" — but Modern English and Early Modern English cites are harder. (I know that Widsith doesn't support our making that distinction, but some editors are rather insistent upon it.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed as English, made Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

High German dialectal forms - Middle High German descendants

As pointed out in this edit and here, the given forms were wrong.
As for the remark in this edit:
1. The pfälzische Wörterbuch and the lothringische Wörterbuch do not state that χ is velar ch. Pfälzische Wörterbuch states:

"χ = stimmloser Vordergaumenreibelaut wie in schd. ich, Recht, reich." and "x = stimmloser Hintergaumenreibelaut (ach-Laut) wie in schd. ach, Joch, Buch."

That is, χ is the ich-laut, IPA [⁠ç⁠], and not the ach-laut, IPA [x] (or maybe [x] or [χ] as it does not necessarily differ between velar and uvular ch).
2. The ch-sound ([⁠ç⁠] vs. [x] or [x]/[χ]) isn't the only problem, and the remark doesn't address the other problems, namely:

• The sources don't give IPA but use other transcription systems, and somebody at Wiktionary tried to transcribe the other transcriptions into the IPA transcription. At least it has to be noted that there was a transcription from one transcription system into another (compare German Wiktionary).
• In the pfälzische Wörterbuch it's not [ʃ].
• Instead of, for example, [aix] it's probably rather [aɪ̯ç], as instead of, for example, IPA's [​i], [iː], [ɪ​], [ɪ​ː], the sources might use ī for [iː] and i for [ɪ​], and as ai probably is a diphthong.

--Berliner 586 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion debate (Yiddish)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

ich

Was deleted out of process, i.e. without WT:RFDN or WT:RFVN (maybe out of prescriptivism, or anti-Judaism or anti-Germanism?);
and whatever WT:About Yiddish might state or not, it is - quote - "not policy".

Yiddish is (or was historically) also written in the Latin script, i.e. it was really written in the Latin script and not just transcribed like in YIVO transcription for learners or for mentionings in non-Yiddish works;
and Yiddish ich (“I”) is attestable, it even is attestable if Yiddish were - subjunctive - treated as a WT:WDL requiring 3 usages.

Some reasons why Yiddish speakers use (or used) Latin letters:

• Intelligibility, or even internationality: Most people in Germany, Europe and even together in Europe, Australia, America, Africa are familiar with the Latin script but not with Hebrew
• With the Latin script, the Yiddish language can better be represented, especially for dialectal differences or vowels (example: the Yiddish word for to come contains an /u/ or /i/ depending on the dialect where the cognate English has an <o>).

-93.221.60.158 01:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

---

Comment: given how often Yiddish is encountered in Latin script, I am sympathetic to the point of view that we should have entries for it, although we currently do not and piecemeal RFDs (or RF-un-Ds) for individual entries are not really the way to change that. And we wouldn't duplicate the content in two places if we did allow Latin-script Yiddish; this would be defined as "Latin script form of ___" and not a full entry like at present. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we should have Latin-script entries for Yiddish words as long as they're attestable in running text that doesn't also use Hebrew script, as opposed to transliterations used for pedagogical purposes or in linguistics articles and the like. If we do, we definitely need to add Latn to the scripts Yiddish uses at Module:languages/data2 so that Latin-script Yiddish is no longer written in a larger font and is no longer automatically transliterated as itself. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Latin-script entries could be treated analogously to the Romanizations of Japanese terms (which are soft redirects to entries in Japanese characters, such as ichi redirecting to いち), so that we do not need to duplicate definitions and other stuff.  --Lambiam 11:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: it wasn't reverted out of process or based on false grounds – it was reverted because Wiktionary clearly states in Wiktionary:About Yiddish that "All entries should be solely in the Hebrew script." Looking at our Yiddish category, we only have two out of 5000+ lemmas written in the Latin script, namely ich and Kushner. If our Yiddish-speaking users say that a Romanization of these lemmas is alright, I defer to them. However, such a change would require a policy change and therefore a vote. Worth noting, this might possibly have implications for several languages which use different scripts and we should consequently tread lightly. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  "However, such a change would require a policy change and therefore a vote." Probably not, it doesn't look like the page was ever confirmed as policy by a vote. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Even if the page itself wasn't confirmed by a vote, it is a project policy page for Yiddish. Any changes to it has vast implications on how Wiktionary treats it (and possibly others) and requires consensus, does it not? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Speedied. Our current consensus is to only have Yiddish in Hebrew script, which is the usual practice for non-Latin-script modern European languages that are sometimes written in Latin script by their diaspora. Anon, if you want to change this, there must be a discussion that finds consensus from active Yiddish editors. Until then, adding individual entries that just duplicate content is not an acceptable path forward. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)