User talk:Mglovesfun/CFI/2

Input

Any (relevant) input welcome. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Specific entry"

One thing is that what you call "specific entry" is what CFI calls "specific entity". The term "entity" is synonymous to "thing" when "thing" is used in a sense that applies to people, animals, plants, numbers, whatnot. What CFI means by "specific" is probably what is also known as "concrete": particular people, trees, stones and rivers are concrete, while particular numbers and geometrical shapes are abstract and thus excluded from "specific entity". I do not know whether literary works are considered abstract or concrete, but they are quite possibly included under the head of "specific entity". --Dan Polansky 06:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No I think specific just means "that there is only one of". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"A specific entry is not the same as a proper noun."

Re "A specific entry is not the same as a proper noun."

Well, of course; a specific entity is the object named, not a name, so it cannot be a proper noun. What you probably wanted to say is that "A name of a specific entity is not a proper noun".

But, assuming that you meant "A name of a specific entity is not a proper noun", quantification is implied and it says that no name of a specific entity is a proper noun, which is incorrect. Some names of specific entities ("London") are proper nouns. What distinguished "proper noun" from "proper name" is only that a proper noun is, outside Wiktionary, a single word. So "York" is a proper noun, while "New York" is not a proper noun. --Dan Polansky 06:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno I stand by that. How are Mickey Mouse and Doctor Who not proper nouns? I'd like to see some evidence that proper nouns can only be (strictly speaking) a single word. I've never come across this

"Specific entries must be attestable with at least one generic meaning."

Re "Specific entries must be attestable with at least one generic meaning."

That is really inacceptable to me. Names of specific entities include names of planets and gods. No generic use should be required for them to be included. --Dan Polansky 06:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I (as well as others) would agree with exceptions for very important cases like countries, regions, capital cities, etc. I think a vote was created on this issue, but was never actually opened! There are some votes in Category:Votes that have not been opened that merit being so, which could solve this problem without actually necessarily modifying this text. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)