Talk:tchýně

Not an alternative spelling

This is not an alternative spelling of "tchyně", but wrong orthography. Alternative spelling is something, what is allowed to be written as correct, this is not.

I am not familiar with how to mark such words here though, so could somebody please fix it?

Thanks

— Danny B. 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A usage note can be added that a regulatory authority considers this spelling incorrect, but this should be sourced from a reference. Google books and Google search shows that the spelling "tchýně" is not only attestable but plentifully so. In fact, "tchýně" three times outperforms "tchyně" on Google web search, and has roughly the same number of hits in Google books: google:"tchýně" -"tchyně" vs google:"tchyně" -"tchýně", google books:"tchýně" -"tchyně" vs google books:"tchyně" -"tchýně". As both spelling are common and similarly so, both are listed as main spellings rather than one being listed as an alternative spelling. --Dan Polansky 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The searches are missing constraint by the Czech language. I have rerun the searches with a constraint on Czech, and I get similar results for Google web, but quite different for Google books: 3000 : 640 for "tchyně" vs "tchýně". --Dan Polansky 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Beer parlour, "Alternative spelling vs. wrong orthography", October 2010. --Dan Polansky 06:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Slovo a slovesnost

Let's have a look at what Trávníček[1] has to say about "tchýně":

V Pravidlech je tchyně, ačkoli se vyslovuje zpravidla tchýně. Krátkost byla zavedena asi proto, že jiná slova na -yně mají -y-: přítelkyně, otrokyně, Bechyně. To však nemůže býti nijak důvodem ke psaní -yně tam, kde se vyslovuje -ýně.

Therefore, we see Trávníček report that the "Pravidla" only contain "tchyně", then state a tentative reason for introduction of that instead of "tchýně", and then declare the reason implausible.

The fact that tchýně is absent from "Pravidla", meaning "Pravidla českého pravopisu", does not make it expressly proscribed, merely absent from a list of approved terms. In the same way, the Pravidla do not contain a lot of informal Czech but that does not make informal Czech "proscribed". The principle that whatever is absent from Pravidla is proscribed cannot be accepted.

I find the label "proscribed" inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Dan Polansky is not authority is Czech language.... sorry. --Lenka64 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he is or isn't. In fact the whole point is that nobody's authority matters. Authorities don't decide what the Czech language is. The actual people who speak and write Czech do. So what matters is actual use of the words, not what anyone says is correct or not. If lots of people use this spelling, then we can't call it a misspelling. Though, I do think we need better and more objective standards on what a misspelling is. Standards that don't appeal to the authority of others. —CodeCat 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if you don't accept language authorities, then the entire English Wiktionary being unsourced with authority records can not be considered reliable then and therefore is worthless and thus useless. Anyway, at least you should respect native speakers of the language. (Because if you claim that national language authorities don't decide, then foreign speakers do not decide at all.) And if 4 Czech native speakers already stated it is misspelling, then it obviously is. How many more you need? In general, whoever does not speak the language, should not interfere, fortiori with blind reverting.
— Danny B. 03:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I respect editors who speak Czech, know the rules, and have provided statistics showing that the "misspelling" is actually very widely used. That is, I respect Dan's views on this matter. 4 native speakers are not an authority on Czech. You're outnumbered by millions of people, as demonstrated by Dan, who use this spelling regularly. Your opinions don't matter, nor does the opinion of any national language authority. What matters is the actual evidence and attestations of words. If this really is a misspelling, you would expect that not many people use it. But this spelling is used by lots of people, so it can't be a misspelling. That some people say it's a misspelling doesn't change that. —CodeCat 12:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Danny B.: Nemá cenu se hádat.... zdejší kvalita hesel je tak nízká že to stejně nepochopí. --Lenka64 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation: There's no point in arguing... the quality of entries here is so low that they will not understand anyway. --Lenka64, translation by --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Danny B.: As per WT:ATTEST, we are using records of actual use as our evidence, in particular "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages)." We don't defer to native speakers as for whether to rely on authorities since if we did, we would open floodgates to continental linguistic prescriptivism, which is at odds with the descriptivist lexicography we are doing here for English, German, Czech, Spanish, etc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chuck Entz / User:CodeCat: reasons of your reverts? --Lenka64 (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We do have a template {{nonstandard spelling of}}; perhaps that would be the most appropriate way of putting it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This spelling is standard, commonly used. It is absent from Pravidla, true, but it alone does not make it non-standard. The authors of Pravidla decided to regulate tchýně away but so far failed, as per common actual use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

But "standard" in reference to orthography doesn't mean "commonly/actually used". It means approved either by some regulatory body if the language has one (English doesn't, but Czech has Institute of the Czech Language) or else by consensus of dictionary editors. If all major British and American dictionaries either fail to list a certain spelling or label it "nonstandard" or "proscribed" or the like, then I would want us to label it "nonstandard" too, no matter how widely used it is (e.g. it's as the possessive determiner corresponding to it – extremely widely used but still nonstandard). If you publish a book with a major Czech publisher and use the spelling tchýně in your manuscript, will the editor change it to tchyně? If you write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and use the spelling tchýně, will they change it to tchyně when they print your letter? If a schoolchild writes tchýně in an essay, will the teacher mark it wrong? If so, this spelling has to be considered nonstandard. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the application of "nonstandard" that you presented. In fact, I don't understand what the label "nonstandard" is intended for. WT:Glossary does not define "nonstandard", not does WT:CFI. I understand that irregardless can be considered non-standard because of the double negation; m-w[2] marks it as "nonstandard". If you can point me to a discussion on the label "nonstandard", I would appreciate it. As for your questions, it is a matter of fact that quite many Czech copyeditors make their life easy by replacing spellings absent from Pravidla and that tchýně is absent from Pravidla.

If the English Wiktionary editors decide that forms absent from authoritative dictionaries are to be labeled "nonstandard", they have to clarify whether that applies to a variety of informal (colloquail) forms as well, which to me seems undesirable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, irregardless reminds me of German zumindestens. I had a German colleague who used the word a lot. German Wiktionary marks de:zumindestens as umgangssprachlich (informal, colloquial), which makes a lot of sense to me. A more prescriptivist approach would be to mark it as proscribed or incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There's an important difference between irregardless/zumindestens on the one hand and tchýně and the other, which is that the former two are linguistically different from their standard equivalents (the difference can be heard in spoken language), while the latter is only orthographically different from its standard equivalent, and orthography has nothing to do with linguistics. Language academies and dictionary publishers are in no position to decide what is and is not grammatical in a language, because only the usage of native speakers can decide that, but they are in a position to decide what is and is not orthographically correct, because orthography is by its nature artificial and externally imposed and has nothing to do with native speakers' Sprachgefühl. I don't think we at Wiktionary have ever discussed how we want to define "standard" (and I notice our own entry for standard has no language-relevant sense), but I do think it makes sense to consider anything (whether linguistic or orthographic) "nonstandard" if it wouldn't be accepted by schoolteachers, proofreaders, and copy editors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This is where I disagree: even spelling is an observable linguistic fact, not only meaning and general word shape. Note I avoided the word "orthography" since it suggests something continental to me, and used the word "spelling". Customary spellings can be observed by a Martian with no access to authoritative pronouncements of regulators. I for one reject to use regulatory works to supply labeling for Wiktionary, and instead propose to use the Martian approach, one in which we look at spelling frequency facts based on corpora. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading again, I noticed this: 'consider anything (whether linguistic or orthographic) "nonstandard" if it wouldn't be accepted by schoolteachers, proofreaders, and copy editors'. Do schoolteachers accept fuck and retard? Should it be marked as "nonstandard"? On another note, the quoted thing is essentially prescriptivist; although the prescription is not made by the lexicographers themselves, it is imported by them from what various "authorities" deem "proper", here schoolteachers, proofreaders and copy editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Spelling is an observable fact, but it isn't a linguistic fact. I have no idea what you mean when you say the term orthography "suggests something continental to me"; orthography is just a cover term for spelling and punctuation. I disagree with the "Martian approach" to spelling (though I agree with it for grammar) because spelling isn't something organic and natural and intrinsic to human nature, the way language is. It is by its nature something imposed by an external authority, like a law. A descriptive grammarian knows that there is no "right" and "wrong" within the grammar of a native speaker, but a descriptive grammarian makes no such claim about spelling because spelling has nothing to do with grammar. There is right and wrong spelling, and because it's imposed externally it can be changed, which is why a spelling like German daß can be correct one day and incorrect the next, just like a certain act can be legal one day and illegal the next. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"ortho" in "orthography" comes from a word meaning right, as you probably now, and I have no intention to talk about right spellings. I want to talk about customary spelling, not correct spelling or even authorized spelling. I disagree that "spelling is by its nature something imposed by an external authority, like a law". I think the word "correct" when applied to spellings means almost nothing at all; it is a deceptive means by which authorities try to mislead the general populace. The only criterion for "misspelling" that I accept is one based on frequency; if a spelling is almost never used and it is near another spelling that is much more often used, chances are the rare spelling is a misspelling, a result of an erroneous transmission from the mind to the hands, or other sort of erroneous transmission. I find the idea that a spelling can be correct one day and incorrect the next day utterly objectionable and continental, and I oppose it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I still don't know what you mean by "continental"; none of our listed meanings makes sense the way you're using it. As for the idea that it can be correct one day and incorrect the next, I would agree with you that that's objectionable if spelling were an aspect of language, but it isn't. Spelling has no more to do with language than a painting of a pipe has to do with nicotine delivery methods. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dan here. A regulatory body can fully miss language reality in pronunciation, grammar, meaning and spelling. On the German side the regulatory body now and then has to take in spellings because the 'correct' ones just aren't used. If a prescription finds no resonance in actual use, it's just a rare misspelling mentioned in a dictionary. (Generally speaking, not applying to tchýně.) We express language in writing, I see no reason to be any less descriptivist in written language than in spoken language. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Because "written language" isn't language; it's just a representation of language. But even in issues of pronunciation, grammar, and meaning (which, unlike spelling, are part of language) it still falls within the purview of a descriptivist dictionary to label nonstandard aspects as nonstandard. We freely label widely used pronunciations, inflections, and meanings "nonstandard" or "proscribed" where appropriate; why not do so for spellings? It is descriptivist to say "this usage deviates from that of careful, edited writing and from what's taught in schools" if it's true. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how the choice of optical units to represent information bound by grammatical and syntactical rules differs from the choice of acoustic units to represent the selfsame information bound by the selfsame grammatical rules. We know some dead languages by their optical representation only and could communicate in them just the same. Saying that a spelling diverges from some prescription should well be noted down as an act of description, but there is a difference about a usage note that a spelling 'not part of standard X' and just flatout declaring that a spelling is wrong. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlike spoken and signed language, written language must be explicitly taught; children do not acquire it simply by being exposed to it. And {{nonstandard spelling of}} doesn't declare that a spelling is wrong, it simply says that it's not part of the standard. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how methods and predispositions of language acquisition relate to our work of language depiction at all. And that template does not mark which standard it is not part of. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The art of writing is taught, right, but that is irrelevant. The practice of writing is still a language practice. Right now, I am engaging in the practice of using a language by writing things down; I am not making a written transcription of what someone said. And those taught to write often emancipate themselves once they have acquired the art. I was taught in school to use a caligraphic style of writing, but when I was a teenager, I have emancipated myself and started to use a style of writing that is more reminiscent of the Anglo-American style. Once language users have emancipated themselves from prescriptions of those who consider themselves to be the regulators, they produce observable language behavior that can be accurately described. What they produce is the customary spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proof of impossibility of "alternative" spelling

The major and most important fact is, that "-yně" is the suffix implying motion (assuming this English term based on w:de:Movierung, feel free to correct, I haven't find the translation in any dictionary, one only says "derivation of feminine forms from masculine nouns". It is basically creating feminine form of words typically by adding female-indicating suffix.).

Cf. bohyně (goddess), důchodkyně (retired woman), hospodyně (female caretaker), jezdkyně (female rider), kolegyně (female coleague), ministryně (female minister), obryně (female giant), oslavenkyně (female celebrated person), předsedkyně (female president), přítelkyně (female firend), sokyně (female opponent), soudkyně (female judge), spolujezdkyně (female co-driver), umělkyně (female artist), velvyslankyně (female ambassador), vévodkyně (dutchess), vězeňkyně (female prisoner), zrádkyně (female betrayer), žákyně (female student) etc...

None of these are even pronounced, fortiori written with long ý. Simply because the "morpheme" *-ýně does not exist at all.

Note: For the sake of completeness it can be also mentioned that the -yně suffix also implies "common local names", so places where something is happening or which have some specific feature (ie. svatyně, jeskyně), but this part is less relevant to the disputed word, which is female form. But the same fact about none are pronounced (and thus written) with "ý" applies as well.

Pronunciation does not automatically imply spelling. While the word tchyně might be pronounced with long ý (especially in some parts of the country), it still does not imply, that the spelling with ý is alternative. There are many words in Czech language (discounting those derived from other languages, which are obvious), which are not pronounced "read-as-you-write/see" but slightly differently. In most majority of them, the alternative (and mostly improper) pronunciation does not constitute the written form of that pronunciation to be alternative spelling.

Also, regarding the cited source: It is from 1948. Not only that Czech language has changed since then significantly both in official rules of orthography and in spoken form, but the form "tchýně" was even not correct in that year. Simply because - as already said above, "*-ýně" is not any existing morpheme of the Czech language.

— Danny B. 22:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you account for the evidence Dan has provided, that this form is widely used? —CodeCat 22:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you account for the evidence Auvajs has provided? Thank you. --Pyprilescu (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC) Besides, have you tried downloading the Czech T9 to your smart phone? Give it a try.. ;-)

Which evidence? I don't see any evidence of wide usage. Also note, that beside Google itself, blogs, personal sites, social networks and similar stuff are not considered as reliable sources.
— Danny B. 23:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not considered reliable by who? —CodeCat 23:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Can you weigh in on this? Since you provided the original statistics, and they seem to value native speakers more, you might be able to get further with them than I can. —CodeCat 23:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think by "reliable sources" he means "CFI-compliant, permanently archived sources". And I still think {{nonstandard spelling of}} is the appropriate template for this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

google books:"tchýně" is a search in Google Books, considered to be durably archived. I object to the label nonstandard spelling, since it being "nonstandard" is not based on actual use but rather on the unscientific linguistic speculation of those who consider themselves to be "authorities" of the Czech language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

CNK (Czech National Corpus, Corpus: syn v4, Query: tchyně (15,585 hits), Query: tchýně (2,605 hits). Those hits are from sources like mainstream newspapers, magazines and books published by recognized publishing houses. --Auvajs (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The above by user Danny B. is a speculative analysis of what the spelling should be. The users of the language have decided that they prefer tchýně. They probably do so since it is more natural to pronounce, and that it matches tchán, whereas for bohyně, there is no *bohán but rather bůh. Furthermore, the form tchýně could have been influenced by the existence of dýně, with which it rhymes. But this is just my speculation for the forces behind the actual use, and it does not matter. What matters is the actual use, not someone's rules. The actual use on the world wide web in high numbers is unequivocal. The actual use in Google Books in significant numbers in unequivocal as well. The users of the Czech language have decided.

This should not be labeled "proscribed", IMHO, or else we would have to label all spellings absent from Příručka as "proscribed", which is inappropriate. Imagine you label all English spellings absent from major dictionaries such as OED as "proscribed": that would be inappropriate as well. What you see here is continental linguistic prescriptivism in its pure form: the empirical evidence of actual use is replaced with abstract analysis based on certain analogies.

@User:Wikitiki89 : Can you please remove the label proscribed? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate why it's not proscribed, when clearly many Czech editors seem to think it's wrong, then I'll remove it. The fact that many Czech speakers think it's wrong and are taught in school that it's wrong is exactly what makes it proscribed. --WikiTiki89 15:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/October#Edit protect tchýně, I think label "proscribed" should ideally not be used at all in a descriptivist dictionary. We already told the reader the form is absent from the regulator's little word list, and that's as far as a description has to go. Yes, multiple Czech editors think the regulator's list define what is "proper" Czech; whether they are the majority I do not know. Actually, since multiple editors object to the "proscribed" label, the label itself should be meta-labeled "proscribed" by the same logic; indeed, I think the label should not only be discouraged but rather banished for good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is the regulator's word list that is proscribed since multiple language users find it objectionable. See how it works? Not too well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If using a form in school or university will get you a red mark and possibly point deduction and if a professional editor in a serious publication is likely to change a form to another, that form is proscribed, since there are some instances that consider its usage an error. This is a describable fact and one our editors need to know, in case they ever decided to enroll in a Czech High School. Noting that this form is absent from list X isn't enough if the absence from list X leads to the fact that using this form anyway in certain environments might be considered a sign of lowered profession in the language. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In this case we have corpus data which show that one form is preferred but the other is still used quite often - roughly speaking once in 7 cases. Please note that the above mentioned corpus data is based on mainstream press and serious publications which usually have professional editors. So professional editors use this form in some 15 % cases which isn't insignificant, in my opinion. On the other hand, vyjímka is used so little that it's probably a misspelling, see Talk:vyjímka. --Auvajs (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me present some more considerations in the speculative, non-empirical, unscientific vein.

1) Vowel length variation in what appears to be basically the same morpheme or derivation pattern is seen elsewhere: compare e.g. radit --> rada, vnadit --> vnada, vadit se -> váda (acute a).

2) Tchýně seems to be slightly different from the rest of the pattern in that it does not have -yně attached but rather merged into. Thus, we have žák --> žák-yně, obr --> obr-yně, jezdec --> jezdk-yně but tchán --> tchýně: án has to be removed before ýně is attached, or else we would have *tchányně. The resulting ending seems to be the result of a merge of the original -án and the added -yně.

3) There is no linguistic law that forbids morphemes from occuring in one word only. Thus, the claim that -ýně is not a morpheme begs the question: it could be that tchýně is the sole bearer of that morpheme.

4) As for "pronunciation does not automatically imply spelling": Czech has a remarkably phonetic spelling. Of course, foreign words such as banjo are pronounced differently, here bendžo or benžo, but words of Slavic origin usually have the spelling match pronunciation. Therefore, the fact that tchýně is often pronounced long cannot so easily be dismissed. A form that is written different from how it is pronounced is a point of inferior usability. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A somewhat related curiosity for interested Czech speakers:

• Václav Ertl, „Obhajoba“, Naše řeč (1918)

Ertl ends his essay against obhajoba with the following words: "Slovo »obhajoba« je tedy vytvořeno analogií, ale analogií mylnou. ... Proto je spisovný jazyk vším právem zamítá."

That did not work. Language users have decided otherwise, in favor of obhajoba.

Let me also quote the following from Ertl: "jeť analogie pramenem nejen forem správných, nýbrž také všelikých zrůdností, nesprávných novotvarů — »chyb«." That requires no comment, I guess. The language users did not elect Ertl to tell them which new coinages are ugly and which not, and which word formation processes are approved and certified and which are frowned upon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Czechs on both sides here need to snap out of it. You're turning in circles trying to convince each other that this word is correct or not, by one measure or the other. That's irrelevant to Wiktionary. This word is used, we record that. This word is not included in some list and hence considered an error by at least some or possibly many. We record that. Whether this spelling is God's Own Czech or not is basically your private discussion. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus of Czech speakers

We do not know what the consensus of Czech speakers is. The abundance of the form in copyedited works suggests many consider the form ok. The Czech speakers revert warring in the entry are not a representative sample; they are a clique of Czech Wiktionary editors noted for volume indiscriminate removal of all images from Czech and Slovak Wiktionaries; I mean Danny B., Lenka64 and JAn Dudík. Each of the three took part in removing images in at least one of the two dictionaries. That removal gives you an idea of what kind of people they are. The one Czech editor who is not part of the clique is Mormegil, who entered the label "proscribed". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What the editors do in their time off English Wiktionary is not particularly interesting or relevant. If their actions here are bad, that will speak for itself. There's no need for character assassination. —CodeCat 21:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

WP: "Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person."

I reported accurately, with zero exaggeration. If in doubt, I can supply diffs. I did not engage in any fallacy of irrelevance: the edits of these people were themselves used as evidence of the spelling being disputed, and it is key to show these edits in the proper light so that a random reader does not gain a false picture of views of Czech speakers in general. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify: some people take more liberal views, some take more narrow, restrictive, limiting views. When a group of people reports that a form is incorrect, it is good to know whether they are of the former or the latter kind. Since if they are of the latter kind, the information gained from their objection is different: of course narrow-minded people seek opportunities to remove, limit, constrain or regulate. Therefore, it is good to know that the form is opposed by the kind of people who oppose images in dictionaries so much that they remove them without consensus, regardless of the individual identity of these people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hum ho

When I go to the headword "tchyně" on the Slovník spisovného jazyka českého (Dictionary of Standard Czech Language) website, copyrighted by the Ústav pro jazyk český in 2011, I see there "tchyně (ob. tchýně)" (ob.=colloq.)[3]. Just saying. Droigheann (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right, I see the same thing in the link you provided. I therefore propose to replace the proscribed label with informal label. I don't object to colloquial, but since modern English dictionaries mostly abandoned colloquial label for informal, I have a preference for informal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether you translate it as colloquial or informal, it's funny that "prescriptivist" ÚJČ should use that label, while "descriptivist" Wiktionary should use proscribed. Droigheann (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)