Talk:sentimental value

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

sentimental value

SoP? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction is delete, but the definition given in the entry may include a little more than is directly meant by the two individual component terms. Also several reputable dictionaries at OneLook do include this term. -- · (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. A common idiom. Means more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It does seem SoP. It is a very common collocation. My feeling is also delete. I increasingly feel that we need some kind of appendix of common collocations, e.g. (Hunston 2002, Corpora in applied linguistics) "acutely aware", "readily available", "vitally important": these are words that occur together very often in English, but that are never taught to foreign learners. Apparently, there is a big groundswell of native English speakers who think these things are important enough to have dict entries! What should we do? Equinox ◑ 01:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Appendix of common colloctions might be a good idea, which would solve the old "translation target" -problem. Many English common collocations are compound words in many other languages. I guess that few users are concerned about Finnish, but it can serve as an example. "Sentimental value" is tunnearvo < tunne (“feeling, emotion, sensation, sentiment”) + arvo (“value, worth”) in Finnish. It's good to have a place where one can check which of the thinkable combinations is the common collocation. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A translator of English into other languages faces a similar problem. "Sentimental + value" is not tunteellinen + arvo in Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would err on the side of keep, since it is so common and seems more than just SoP. But I would add that the question of its being "one word" in Finnish is probably not so clear, though in all fairness I know no Finnish. But at least in the case of other agglutinative languages (most notably German), the fact that something can be written without any spaces does not a word make. Räumungsbefehl (“eviction notice”) and Steuertricks (“tax tricks”) are not deserving of entries (although we do have the dubious entry häätöilmoitus). Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän doesn't deserve an entry either, in my opinion, but someone created one because of the novelty value. Aperiarcam (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with häätöilmoitus being dubious. Ilmoitus has at least six possible translations into English, of which "notice", "notification" and "announcement" are thinkable options for this particular translation. According to Ngram, only "notice" is used in this context. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been debate on whether no spaces makes something a word for our purposes, and there is no consensus. There is no simple definition of what is a word even (or especially) in languages like German and Finnish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I note that the OED thinks it idiomatic enough to keep. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have lived in the belief that there's a consensus of no space making a compound term a word. At least in English it does. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Another point is that "sentimental value" can really equally refer to any sense of value that makes sense in the context. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I like the Oxford definition better actually [1]. Donnanz (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Re Common Collocations Appendix. I have been after something like this for many years. It seems there might at last be a certain degree of support. I remember suggesting that we could allow a collapsible table of common collocations within the main headword definition. Anyone agree? -- By the way, either keep or add to common collocations. -- ALGRIF talk 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How would you solve the issue of showing the translations for the common collocations? --Hekaheka (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hekaheka. I really do not think we need translations for common collocations. Mainly because they are nothing special that cannot be translated directly. It is simply "the way we commonly use this word" information. Extra stuff, which could be of interest to many English L2 speakers. For instance "dumb luck" does not deserve a headword entry, but it is a very common collocation. Put it under "Common Collocations" in both dumb and luck. However, no translation is needed, as it is pretty obvious to anyone how this would translate into any language. -- ALGRIF talk 08:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Even without translations, a centralized appendix of all common English collocations would become monstrously large, so storing collocations in (or near) individual entries seems more practical, more scalable. There was some support in 2012 for having 'collocations' sections in entries, and we currently sometimes include very common collocations in usage notes (see e.g. goods), not to mention usexes, but it's not feasible to add translations to collocations listed in either or those ways : the sections would grow too large and take up too much visual and byte space in the entry. I suggest we create a 'Collocations:' namespace, to be given its own tab like 'Citations' and to be made prominent by being linked-to using a {{seeCites}}-type template from entries. In this namespace, we would list common collocations as the glosses to translation tables, to which translations could be added. I have mocked up a 'Collocations tab' at Talk:goods; note that SOP translations are linked accordingly. (We could just move all those tables to a =====Collocations==== aection in the entry, but as I said, I think that'd consume too much space.) - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks quite good! Could we perhaps move this tangential discussion to somewhere more topic related? -- ALGRIF talk 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've started a BP thread: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Adding_a_collocations_tab_or_section. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep using the lemming heuristic: in oxforddictionaries.com[2] and Collins[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Dan and Toon. Purplebackpack89 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I am the nominator, voting keep per Lemming principle. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)