Talk:danke schon
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Prince Kassad in topic danke schon
This has bad spelling!
- Marked as a misspelling. —Stephen 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Some Q&D citations:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cvrJGwAACAAJ&dq=%22danke+schon%22&hl=en&ei=U7A_TICyE8L68AaOn6jjCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA (and a book with this in the title.)--Prosfilaes 01:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
I do not think that this is a common misspelling of danke schön. I, as a German, cannot remember a single case where I had seen it. Also, schon ("already") is a word with a different meaning in German. Most Google hits show validly spelled phrases with a different meaning, like "Danke schon mal im Voraus" (thanks already in advance) --Zeitlupe 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete this, and in general misspellings that leave out diacritics. Most of them are just examples of laziness rather than genuine misspellings. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- deleted --Volants 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- What happened to waiting seven days for deletion? "danke schon" is a not uncommon spelling in English publications of one of a very few German phrases the average English speaker might be able to recognize, and as German embedded in English might be something that the average English-speaking user of Wiktionary might look up and hope to find--and said user would have no chance of restoring any missing diacritics, whether dropped due to laziness or error.--Prosfilaes 01:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've undeleted this as the deletion was indeed very premature (2 hours is nowhere close to 7 days), and the German embedded in English deserves consideration at the very least. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say redirect it to danke schön. Leaving diacritics might seem lazy but people rarely have all diacritics on their keyboard unless they speak the language. And this one is common enough for English speakers (without diacritics on their keyboards) to want to look up. —CodeCat 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- But... if you type in danke schon it suggests danke schön anyway. Let the search facility handle it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- But we lose the chance to make it clear that danke schon in an English text is in fact danke schön, and vice versa that danke schon is in fact good German that doesn't mean the same thing.--Prosfilaes 23:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- But... if you type in danke schon it suggests danke schön anyway. Let the search facility handle it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say redirect it to danke schön. Leaving diacritics might seem lazy but people rarely have all diacritics on their keyboard unless they speak the language. And this one is common enough for English speakers (without diacritics on their keyboards) to want to look up. —CodeCat 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've undeleted this as the deletion was indeed very premature (2 hours is nowhere close to 7 days), and the German embedded in English deserves consideration at the very least. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You brought up a good point. Simply dropping the diacritics is indeed a habit that people in English-speaking countries do who do not really speak German. Advanced or native German speakers nearly never do it, because it changes the pronunciation of the word (and in this case even the meaning). German speaker would change the umlaut in schön to schoen if they use a keyboard or font without umlauts. So in general I am against creating entries without diacritics for German words with umlauts. But in this case, it could indeed be a common misspelling in English books citing German. But this needs to be backed up by citations. --Zeitlupe 10:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Someone looked up some cites and linked them at Talk:danke schon. —Stephen 10:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) A quick look at usenet shows lots of German posts that use "danke schon" without umlauts. I've also fairly easily found seven durably archived uses of "danke schon" in books/magazines. These are a mixture of the German term embedded in English and passages of German in otherwise English works. I'm not sure whether we should put these under a German or English L2 header though. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm happy to mark these up into proper
{{quote-book}}/{{quote-magazine}}templates when we decide which language they are. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)- Ok abstain at least for now. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of using German posts to cite this, because that gets into the range of ad-hoc ASCII orthographies, which can be a hairy mess. When writing Esperanto on the net, people frequently write ĉ as ch (official standard) or cx (common computer-age version), and c^, ^c, c' and c- have been seen. w:Greeklish is a group of orthographies for Greek frequently seen on the net. And w:Volapuk encoding and w:Arabic chat alphabet... even for mostly ASCII German, there's both danke schon and danke schoen and danke scho"n (though that's hard to search for). Sticking to printed sources in cases of questionable orthography reduces that problem some.--Prosfilaes 23:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely delete. Possibly a redirect but better not. We should not keep entries with such spelling, especially if the search suggests the right spelling. Do we have this kind of entries for French or Spanish? In German schon means already, schön - beautiful; very much. The combination danke schon may mean "thanks then" (thanking someone unwillingly) in German. By the way Germans, when they miss Umlaut for whatever reason replace ö with oe, ä with ae and ü with ue (ß = ss), never with a letter without Umlaut. So, danke schoen would be a common misspelling, not danke schon. In many cases a word without Umlaut has a different meaning and of course, it's pronounced differently. --Anatoli 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Admittedly foreign students of German may use letters without Umlaut, if they don't have the means or can't be bothered to look for it. Also some German words were anglicised incorrectly, like Fuhrer instead of Führer or Fuehrer but these are not misspellings made by Germans but by foreigners, not knowing the language. --Anatoli 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll wait for more answers and if there are no objections will move the entry to danke schoen. IMHO, ö = "oe", ä = "ae" and ü = "ue" could be made as German "common misspellings". --Anatoli 02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Couldn't this be at least a redirect to a better spelling? Simplifying German umlaut orthography is common in English, even for such proper names as "Dühring" => "During" (c. 1912). DCDuring TALK 03:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll wait for more answers and if there are no objections will move the entry to danke schoen. IMHO, ö = "oe", ä = "ae" and ü = "ue" could be made as German "common misspellings". --Anatoli 02:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done. danke schoen - a common misspelling, danke schon - a redirect. --Anatoli 04:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can someone archive discussions on the entries' talk pages, please? I don't know how this is done. --Anatoli 04:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I object to the redirect. We have cites above showing that "danke schon" is used by English speakers embedding German in their English works. ggc is full of German speakers using "danke schon" in a specific environment. Just because they should be using "danke schön" or "danke schoen" doesn't mean they are not also using "danke shon. We don't redirect misspellings because we describe usage we don't prescribe it. The only question is how we handle "language X" embedded in "language Y" (this isn't solely a German in English question, Latin in English, English in Portuguese, Dutch in Welsh, in theory any language in any other language is possible" — This unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs).
- It's back again. Debate is not even nearly finished. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- This was an excellent example of a violation of WT:REDIR. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, you should sign your comments - I got confused who says what. I don't think we should have entries for many language errors, even if we are supposed to describe here. 1) A valid misspelling is the one made at least by native speakers. 2) If you want to make this entry, don't put German at the heading since it's not how Germans use it. I agree it's laziness, not a misspelling but a missing diacritic merits a redirect, that's why I agreed to make a redirect, delete is also fine with me. Mglovesfun, please don't use "an excellent example of a violation" or other strong words, we are discussing whether this is a valid but different (mis)spelling, as in WT:REDIR. --Anatoli 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't usually forget to sign. There should probably be two entries on the danke shcon page, one for German embedded in English (although what L2 header it gets I'm not certain), and one for German as used where accents aren't possible/easy. Whether the latter is correct or not, or whether it is the product of laziness or not doesn't matter, it is verifably used and therefore we should have an entry for it, although whether that should be as an alternative spelling or a common misspelling I don't know. Also, even if the spelling without an umlaut or an e was not used by native speakers, native speakers are not the only people who use German. Your redirection was a violation of WT:REDIR, specifically "Redirects are never used for incorrect spellings" and "[C]ontent should never be replaced by a redirect". Doing so before the before the discussion had finished was either bad faith or grossly inconsiderate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, you should sign your comments - I got confused who says what. I don't think we should have entries for many language errors, even if we are supposed to describe here. 1) A valid misspelling is the one made at least by native speakers. 2) If you want to make this entry, don't put German at the heading since it's not how Germans use it. I agree it's laziness, not a misspelling but a missing diacritic merits a redirect, that's why I agreed to make a redirect, delete is also fine with me. Mglovesfun, please don't use "an excellent example of a violation" or other strong words, we are discussing whether this is a valid but different (mis)spelling, as in WT:REDIR. --Anatoli 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I may have rushed as I thought the discussion was over but I would hate Wiktionary to collect all spelling mistakes in any language by English speakers. They are verifiable, no doubt but what's the value of such entries? Shall we start collecting all "mersee bawkoo" type of spellings? I made a redirect, which is a common thing for words missing diacritics. danke schoen is the only valid misspelling we should have, I don't why know it was deleted. Anyway, I lost interest in these entries as I don't see any linguistic value in having danke schon as an entry and I strongly oppose having a common misspelling entry if they are not by native speakers. If there is a discussion on "a common misspelling entry" should be, I'll join this discussion. --Anatoli 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- We only collect spellings that repeatedly attestible. Google Books shows no hits for mersee bawkoo. The value of such entries is that when (in this case English) people pick up an (in this case English) book and read it, they can turn to Wiktionary to find out what a word means. I don't think we should be redirect danke schon to danke schön if the first doesn't mean the same thing as the latter, which you've attested it doesn't.--Prosfilaes 00:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anatoli, perhaps if you hadn't speedily deleted the entry in the middle of a debate (again […] ). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- We only collect spellings that repeatedly attestible. Google Books shows no hits for mersee bawkoo. The value of such entries is that when (in this case English) people pick up an (in this case English) book and read it, they can turn to Wiktionary to find out what a word means. I don't think we should be redirect danke schon to danke schön if the first doesn't mean the same thing as the latter, which you've attested it doesn't.--Prosfilaes 00:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what merits it has as a German misspelling, but if this exact spelling is citable in running text that is otherwise English then it should be marked as a borrowed German term in the English language. DAVilla 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I deleted the entry as there seems to be clear consensus that this is not a valid German term. However, it may be valid in English, in which case you can feel free to create the entry with an English L2 header. -- Prince Kassad 17:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)