Talk:s'y

RFD discussion: January–March 2020

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

s'y

m'y

l'une

lorsqu'on

qu'elles

qu'au

qu'à

qu'en

qu'eux

qu'il

I am learning French and found the page useful. Please do not delete. — This unsigned comment was added by 182.239.176.204 (talk) at 10:49, 4 January 2020.

Keep. We have they're and other contractions too. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There have been considerations about the French contractions that are frequently achieved in the same manner in differentiation to the English contractions in the section of lorsqu’il from May 2019. Therefore, a comparison to English probably can't be a complete reason for these French entries. HeliosX (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

qu'ils

qu'on

qu'un

qu'une

jusqu'au

jusqu'aux

jusqu'en

j'y

As outlined at the beginning of this page, French entries like these can be regarded as sums of parts and therefore should not be kept. HeliosX (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I literally just looked it up. Keep all of these. Also, where's this outline you talk about?__Gamren (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I am quoting this from the beginning of this page: "One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as 'green leaf'." Also, I am citing this from the criteria for inclusion on Wiktionary: "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP)." The French contractions are not idiomatic because their meaning is the same as the meaning of their segmented components. Hence, they can be viewed as sums of parts and seemingly don't fulfill the given criteria for inclusion. HeliosX (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Go to the top of WT:CFI: " including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic." That doesn't say anything about "segmented components". I'm not strongly driven one way or the other, but a series of letters without spaces are generally consider a single word and eligible for an entry whether or not "their meaning is the same as the meaning of their segmented components". The role of apostrophes is still in debate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep all at this time, on the grounds that we treat contractions like German so'n and English he's as single words and keep them. If, in the particularly case of j'suis, je could be found contracted this way before functionally any verb, I would reconsider that one. I would also add that although I have raised the issue a number of times, we do not yet seem to have any formal policy on which contractions we keep vs exclude, e.g. we have he's and there's and y'all'd've, but not kitten's (as in "the kitten's in the bed); if we were to agree on some general rules about such things, we could reconsider these (and all our other contractions, such as English better'n and English bettern't) at that time. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@-sche: One significant difference to German so'n is that the latter is actually more than just a contraction of so ein, because it can (in colloquial language at least) be used in the plural, which so ein can't. We don't actually indicate that in our entry, but we should. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep all, beginners have a hard time understanding these forms so I see it as a disservice to expunge them from Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: What about j’suis below? As a nonstandard form it's unlikely to be encountered by beginners. I think by the time someone encounters j'suis their French will be good enough that they'll be able to break it down into j’ + suis. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja:, sorry for the delay. I would keep that too, because I'm not sure most people who have studied French are aware that this formation is possible albeit in informal French. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

j'suis

Also, tagged but not listed:

 --Lambiam 20:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

See also #d'une and #lorsqu'il.  --Lambiam 20:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete all, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)