Talk:puukko

RFV — passed

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

It's not that I would not like the idea - but can puukko really be considered an English word? --Hekaheka 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say it can, because it's evidently been used in English without self-consciousness. Google Books has ~60 matches for "a puukko", ~20 for "his puukko". Some might be italicised in the source text, indicating that the author thinks it foreign — pity we can't see this on the Web — but I can't believe they all are. (Update: the use of puukkos plural is a strong hint as well, because clearly Finnish doesn't pluralise that way.) Equinox 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A preview was available for thirteen of the 23 matches for "his puukko". In ten cases "puukko" was either italicised, explained or both. In three it is in plain text but through the context it is quite clear that "puukko" is some kind of a knife. --Hekaheka 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Most are italicized, but I think it's now cited with sufficient unitaliced uses.—msh210℠ 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not, as the third citation explains the meaning of the word in parentheses just after using it, which IMHO speaks "against" it rather than in its favour. --Duncan 20:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

First citation is from p. 99 of a book. Earlier, on page 55 the term "puukko" is explained, and on page 68 it is called "puukko-dagger". The second citation is from p. 79 of another book, in which the term "puukko-knife" appears on page 77. To me this kind of usage indicates that the writer considers the word "puukko" foreign.

Our criteria for inclusion explicitly allow that sort of citation, saying:

[…] On the other hand, a sentence like “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” appearing in an account of a sailboat race, would be fine. It happens to contain a definition, but the word is also used for its meaning.

—Ruakh_TALK 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Agreed, but does it apply as well when we're not verifying a sense or the fact that the word is not a protologism, but what languages it belongs to? It seems to me that adding a parenthesised explanation is exactly what one would do when using a word from another language for which the one he uses at the moment misses a fitting translation... --Duncan 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed DAVilla 19:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)