Talk:bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Should be deleted?[edit]

This entry is quite ridiculous and should be deleted. Sano

Ridiculousness is not a reason for deletion. The word meets our inclusion requirements (WT:CFI) for appearing in a well-known work of literature. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"Well-known" is hardly scientific or objective...hence, ridiculous. This is not a word, it is not even a novelty, it's little more than a random string of letters used as a literary device in one and only one book. If that meets the inclusion requirements, then in my opinion, they need serious revision.Sano
It is not a random string. Joyce constructed it carefully by blending together words for thunder in many different languages. Equinox 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is the result of careful Joyce. Robert Ullmann 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
While I can understand your sentiment, Sano, this word is included because it is a nonce word invented by a "well-known author" in a "well-known work" and so complies with the norms for WT:CFI. Other similar examples (although much shorter) can be found in Wiktionary, such as brillig from Jabberwocky and curiously runcible spoon, which was a nonce word when it was coined by Edward Lear, but has now come to acquire a real meaning. -- ALGRIF talk 12:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Continually referring to WT:CFI does not make this any more of a word. As to your examples, they are both pronounceable, used in meaningful ways more than once, and again, "well-know" is hardly a valid justification to include in any sort of requirements. Who decides "well-known"? This is an arbitrary distinction that means nothing in my honest opinion. Sano
From time to time the question of revising WT:CFI does come up. Feel free to read and participate in the discussion on this now at WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This should not be deleted. This has to do with Humpty Dumpty from Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. DUH.

The other "thunderwords"[edit]

Man, I love editing this page and seeing it come up in the recent changes. Anyway, here are all of the "thunderwords" from Ulysses, in case some mischievous scamp ever wants to add the others. Source page: [1]. All are 100 letters long, except the last which has 101. Equinox 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It would be really superb to have a proper etymology for this (and the others), most of which comprise probably a dozen or more words (in various languages) on the same theme. I expect scholars have done the work for us, somewhere. Equinox 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Other than that they were coined by James Joyce instead of George Lucas, J.R.R. Tolkien, Gene Roddenberry, or J.K. Rowling, I don't see how these two words meet the requirements of Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes. Delete or move to an Appendix for Finnegans Wake. — Carolina wren discussió 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't meet the CFI. Razorflame 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly favor amending WT:CFI to eliminate the "well=known work" exception to our normal attestation standard. Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, Nabakov, Burgess, Tolkein, and Pynchon are among the authors whose bad coinages are given a free pass. In this context "bad" means not taken up by anyone else (mentions in literary criticism doesn't count.). I'm sure that if we looked harder at some of our contractions we'd find some that exist only because they satisfied the need a well-known poet for a word that fit the meter. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I would approve such an amendment to the CFI. Razorflame 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Mostly useless, but also mostly harmless, and well within current (and long-standing) policy. At least, I have a hard time imagining a definition of "well-known work" that wouldn't include Finnegans Wake. Therefore keep, without prejudice to the general policy question. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The rationale for the well-known work exemption, as I understand it, is that a complete version of Wiktionary should leave no word-sense questions unanswered for someone reading Shakespeare, Milton, etc. This seems reasonable enough to me, though the flip side of that is that we are currently missing thousands of words and word forms that appear even in respelled modern editions of Shakespeare. (I have some lists, if anyone is interested.) On the other hand, this particular need could arguably be better addressed in Concordance: or Appendix:-space, though that approach also has problems. That said, if we eliminate the exemption entirely, we need to replace it with a more nuanced approach to languages that are poorly-attested (Homeric Greek, Eteocypriot, Cia-Cia) or unstandardized (Middle English, Middle Korean, actually almost any Middle/Old language). "Well-known work" gives us an loophole for including forms that appear only in the Homeric hymns, or that are found in a particular spelling only in Chaucer. This is unsatisfactory, of course, since it still excludes less-known writings; but I don't think the well-known-work issue can be addressed before the poorly-attested-languages issue. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy if we just did it for English. Other high-use modern languages might merit the same treatment. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek#Attestation, if approved, would require only one attestation for an Ancient Greek word. (See Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/April#Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek.) —RuakhTALK 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As much as I don't like it a lot, keep per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept per WT:CFI, change that before renominating. Conrad.Irwin 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Green check.svg

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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

WT:FICTION requires three citations independent of the universe/work from which it was originated to exist in the mainspace, but this contains only one citation, and such that it is dubious. TeleComNasSprVen 20:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the "usage in a well-known work" part of CFI override WT:FICTION? -- Prince Kassad 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As it stands, yes, and this was also RFDed and passed in Dec 2009. speedy keep until CFI changes. - TheDaveRoss 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to get rid of the hapax legomena that we have based on this justification, but rules is rules. Keep and fast. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep per its talk page. Though to my annoyance cryptex failed RFV under similar circumstances (only used in one well-known work as part of a fictional universe). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete in spite of CFI. (I am acting under the principle that CFI should be sometimes taken exception to, even if rarely.) --Dan Polansky 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep; this seems like the case that this clause in CFI was designed for.--Prosfilaes 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I see no evidence that this is a "term[] originating in [a] fictional universe[]". —RuakhTALK 20:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, pace Prince Kassad and TheDaveRoss, I don't think the "usage in a well-known work" ConFI completely overrides the "Fictional universes" section. That said, I think we can safely interpret that section's "three citations in separate works" clause (allowing appendical inclusion) as being a generic reference to the requirements in the "Attestation" section — so if we deem The Da Vinci Code to be a well-known work, for example, then cryptex can be included in a relevant appendix. —RuakhTALK 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to RfV for attestation of meaning, not just existence. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. In my view the "well-know work" rule is designed to allow authors to be creative in the use of suffixes, affixes, foreign derivations and suchlike -- using words like "nymphet" (Nabokov) or "zomoskepsis" (Pynchon), whose roots and meanings are potentially work-outable. Basically, new words from real building-blocks. I think it's pointless to use it to validate obviously nonsensical words like this one, or for example invented languages or dialects as in A Clockwork Orange or Riddley Walker. Otherwise where does it end? Are we going to include every word of Finnegans Wake? Ƿidsiþ 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Finnegans Wake? Never heard of it. Send to RFV on that very poor rationale. Also, what other people said. DAVilla 12:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus, though fanciful, this looks suspiciously like it could be a specific place name with commercial interest, so without quotations indicating otherwise, it needs to pass WT:BRAND, WT:FICTION, and WT:CFI#Place names, not to mention any other requirements that are invented after those have been painstakingly met. DAVilla 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like this clause of CFI, then change it, don't try to sabotage it; it's not capitalized, and there's no indication that it's a place or brand.--Prosfilaes 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, strange mood I was in. I was being completely sarcastic. My gripe is not with CFI, it's with the compounding, including the uncertainty of compounding, and the compounding uncertainty. DAVilla 09:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Finnegans Wake is a hard case, but yes, what that rule in CFI means is that we will include every word in a well-known work. I see no reason to exclude works like A Clockwork Orange just because they have words that people will want to look up because they can't work out what they mean.--Prosfilaes 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Relegate to an appendix of words unique to the works of James Joyce (and commentaries thereupon). bd2412 T 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Until and unless there is a restructuring which redirects to an appendix but then that would still be a keep. The importance of the writer and the work are the key factors here, there is no precedent for any work or author not rising to the level of Joyce/Finnegan's Wake.Geofferybard 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Our entry says this is an Interjection and defines it as if it were a noun: "A sound which represents the symbolic thunderclap associated with the fall of Adam and Eve" How would one know this is the "meaning" of the word? Because Joyce said so? Because a commentator said so? Because a majority of voters said so? Because of the not-yet-provided authoritative etymology makes it plausible? Having such an entry seems to ignore the idea of meaning in any linguistic sense. It seems that we can best serve the opening sentence of WT:CFI (A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means) if we say that all evidence about what it means is in the text in which it appears. Otherwise we are supporting yet another in the crypto-prescriptivist definitions that we seem to be falling prey to as we lose our native-speaker contributors. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered as a word. Does anybody really consider it as a word? And is anybody likely to look for its meaning? Lmaltier 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The James Joyce stuff calls on the issues brought up at WT:BP#Newspeak. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

kept. RfD is the wrong venue for discussing any policy changes. -- Prince Kassad 09:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Crap is crap[edit]

I've read with increasing dispear the contents of this talk page. This garbage "bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk" is not a word, and will never be a word, this is a clear example of policy over common sence, and wiktionary standing is badly undermined by it's inclusion. Get rid of it, its crap. Jasonfward

  • It boggles the mind that this page is still here. It's not 'policy' over 'common sense' as much as it is simple lunacy. ~ sano ~ (talk)