Talk:devalueing

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion discussion[edit]

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.

devalueing[edit]

Extremely uncommon misspelling of devaluing. I tried Google Books Ngram which says it can't even find devalueing. I would've tagged it with {{d}} but I thought it might get ignored. But please delete immediately. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been deleted out of process? What did the entry say previously? Why don't deletions show up in an editor's contributions? Dbfirs 20:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ivan Štambuk deleted it 19, October 2014. 10 days from nomination does seem to be pretty quick, especially 2 days after an opposing view was posted. I notice, though, that Renard had changed the tag from {{rfd}} to {{d}} the same day he added it, so Ivan may not have been aware of this discussion.
As to the merits, I don't share Dan's childlike faith in statistical tests, but I wouldn't call the 73 hits I got in Google Books "rare", given that scannos are unlikely to add a letter, and that books are usually edited and have fewer misspellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining what happened. I now see why I couldn't trace the history. There do seem to be quite a few instances of this mis-spelling in Google Books. I wonder why Ngrams doesn't find them. Dbfirs 22:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1632:1, way too rare. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck & Dan don't think so. If the mis-spelling is this common in books, then it's probably much more common in unedited text. Dbfirs 08:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know they don't think so; I read their comments. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uncommon misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Donnanz (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (explicit bolding). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are 7 spellings that the supporters of "delete" consider to be common misspellings worth keeping? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For English, how about alot, alright, donut, enuf, lite, tonite, and tuff? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are alternative spellings, not misspellings. Spelling "tonight" is even found in many dictionaries that do not list misspellings: “alright”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; specifically MWO[1], which has a usage note mentioning some people deeming the spelling wrong. Most of the other ones are clearly intentional formations, like eye dialect spellings. The items mentioned should not carry (deprecated template usage) misspelling template (as they don't); the template should not be used to mark prescriptivist stances. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The term "misspelling" is inherently prescriptivist; you can't label anything a misspelling without being prescriptivist. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. Relative frequency is a fact and we can label things as misspellings based on such facts. Even descriptivist dictionaries exclude some attested items as misspellings, and this does not make them any less descriptivist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • If we were being purely descriptivist about it, we'd label them "rare alternative spellings" rather than "misspellings", which is by its nature a value judgment. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • "misspellings" is not a value judgment; it is no more a value judgment than "miscalculation". Misspelling is a failed attempt at spelling; the person writing or typing tried to create a certain spelling but produced another one (happens to me all the time). In User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling, I propose to understand misspellings as failures of transmission over a noisy communication channel. Errors of transmission are facts; to label a difference between the sent message and the received message as an error and to label the means of detecting it as an "error-detecting code" is an act of description, not of making value judgments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • They're totally different things. A miscalculation is an error in an objective mathematical fact; a misspelling is a deviation from a socially accepted norm. It's like breaking a taboo or a law. There's no "noise" involved in a misspelling, merely ignorance of, lack of interest in, or deliberate violation of the artificially imposed standard spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I do not share this definition of "misspelling" as a violation of "socially accepted norm", especially not for a language like English that does not have a prescriptivist language academy. An error in transmission over a channel is a fact (in its being an error), not having to do anything with "socially accepted norm". When I make a misspelling, I see myself as making a harmless error of transmission rather than seeing myself as engaging in a "violation" of a "socially accepted norm". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not how I would have thought about it, but I think Polansky's view is a useful one for us. A misspelling is a spelling used by someone who would recognize themselves as being in error if it is pointed out to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We don't have a language academy, but we do have authoritative (prescriptivist) dictionaries, schoolteachers, proofreaders, and copy editors. A misspelling is a spelling that would be marked wrong by a schoolteacher and that would be corrected by a proofreader or copy editor. That spelling is a social norm rather than an objective truth is shown by the fact that what is considered a misspelling can vary by location (color is a misspelling in the UK but not in the US) and time (German muß is a misspelling today but it wasn't 20 years ago). It's not necessarily a transmission error because unless the misspelling is so extreme that I can't figure out what you're trying to say, you have successfully transmitted your message. If someone writes recieve instead of receive, I know what they mean, so there's no error in transmission; they simply failed to follow the artificially imposed rule that this word is to be spelled receive. (On the other hand, when my sister's dyslexic roommate wrote bansy on the shopping list, that was a transmission error because my sister had no idea that her roommate was trying to say bananas.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • When I spell "recieve", there is an error of transmission from the store of syntactic objects in my mind to the medium, such as paper. Of course, I speak of transmission of syntactic objects rather than semantics, since that is what misspellings are about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:devalueing&oldid=49609493"