Talk:à contrecœur

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.

---

à contrecœur

English section. Considering use/mention, this doesn't seem to have any citations with this spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The entry has four English citations. The 1882, 1990, and 2004 citations all use the spelling with the grave accent and œthel (the undated quotation, I concede, is legitimately a citation of the à contrecoeur spelling). I don’t see how you can construe any of the quotations to be merely mentioning the adverb, rather than using it (though I await your explanation with bated breath). Whether the quotations are examples of use or not, this is still a matter for WT:RFV where, if you are correct, you can feel safe in the knowledge that this English section would be deleted after one month. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The typography is a dead-giveaway. In quotation marks or italics (in the original texts) mean they don't count as citations. This was put on RFD immediately after you removed content that you personally object to. --Connel MacKenzie 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I personally objected to your glosses (which you added because you “personally object” to ligatures and diacritics, which must make this adverb the very eidolon of bad typography for you); that’s not the point — the point is that they contravened (or, to put it more mildly, were not supported by) policy and/or common practice. Since when does italicisation or enclosure in quotation marks invalidate a citation (link to policy or explicit expression of common practice please)? Nonetheless, if you wanted the English section deleted for that reason, you should have taken it to WT:RFV and tried to argue for the invalidation of the citations there. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you were certainly wrong to do so - how things like this are handled on en.wiktionary.org is very much in debate. You yourself have contributed much toward that. Vandalizing sample entries to support your POV before the approach is even discussed is over the top. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

People tend to create sample entries from non-controversial ones. Why did you have to go and choose the only entry listed in Category:English words spelled with diacritics and ligatures? You’ll forgive me for doubting that your revision was intended to create some example for a WT:VOTing proposal, rather than as a means of attacking the use of diacritics and ligatures in English. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "In quotation marks or italics (in the original texts) mean they don't count as citations.": That's not true. You might want to re-read the relevant section of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, and take a look at w:Use-mention distinction; note that it's quite possible for a term to be simultaneously used and mentioned. —Ruakh_TALK 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of troll? Fro crying out loud, read WT:CFI. What you assert (italics used alone ~= use + mention?) is not what it says at all. When this was added, the WP article was probably significantly different. ("Instruction creep?" Probably.) Nevertheless, there have been numerous examples of citations being thrown out (for RFV purposes especially) because the term used italics; particularly when someone is falsely claiming that a foreign term has entered common use in English. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If examples of citations being thrown out for having the pertinent term italicised are so numerous, then I’m sure you’ll have no problem linking to three or four here. As for your CFI points:

1. Conveying meaning: All four citations use à contrecœur to convey meaning compatible with reluctantly, and do not merely list, comment upon, or define the word. Mentioned rather than used terms may often be italicised; however, not all are, and this does not mean that italicisation’s only purpose is to denote mentioned terms.
2. Variant spellings: I’m not really sure what’s relevant here… this is a legitimate spelling — what’s more to be said?
3. Attestation: This has four citations from durably archived sources spanning over a year. I therefore satisfies the criteria for inclusion.
4. Typographic variants: I don’t think that à contrecœur is in anywhere near the same class as the examples given in that section (G-d, pr0n, i18n, and veg*n). However, if you maintain that it is, then I strongly suggest that you obtain a WT:VOTE in your favour on this matter, as the section as it currently stands does not imply that such denigrated typographical variants include œthels and letter written with grave accents.

† Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

From (1) above, Ruakh was suggesting that “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” has something to do with italics: completely false.

From (2) above, Ruakh was suggesting that "A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to support his view with references. Published grammars and style guides' can be useful in that regard, as can statistics concerning the prevalence of various forms." (Emphasis mine) has something to do with italics: completely false. No other reference lists this as an English term. No statistics support it entering the language.

From (3) above, "Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are."

From (4) above, "The inclusion of terms which contain unusual characters...is somewhat controversial. A few view some of these as bizarre or illiterate, notwithstanding their appearance in a variety of media, and find them to have no place in a respectable dictionary."

So yes, your and Ruakh's misquoting of CFI is trollish. --Connel MacKenzie 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that you stop posting comments mid-heroin-trip? You're the one who brought up italics and quotation marks, claiming that citations using them automatically don't count. Now, the CFI don't actually mention either of these; as far as I can discern, you made this up. I operated under the assumption that you might be sane and mean well ("assume good faith" and all that), and made my best guess: that you were slightly misinterpreting the "use-as-opposed-to-mention" criterion, since a term that's in italics or quotation marks generally seems to be being mentioned. So, I pointed out that a word can be simultaneously used and mentioned, which is something the CFI explicitly mention. What part of this makes me a troll? (If it's my assumption of good faith on your part, let me know and I can start dispensing with that; the cognitive dissonance was starting to get to me, anyway.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No heroin use here; don't know that the same can be said for you though. So stop making "shit" up. The CFI doesn't cover all the nuances of RFV acceptability; much of that is actually in the individual debates. Since you personally archived so many RFV sections, I'm sure you took care to move relevant conversations to easy-to-find policy-stubs, right? I don't think I'll be able to assume good-faith on your part, now. You are asserting the opposite of what you know to be reasonable. Citations of use are given to show how a term is used in English; obviously terms in italics have not been borrowed into common use. But thanks again for revealing your POV. --Connel MacKenzie 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fowler's 2nd Edition lists the following ideas that may be conveyed by italicizing a word:

1. 'This word, and not the whole phrase of which it forms part, contains the point.'
2. 'This word is in sharp contrast to the one you may be expecting.'
3. 'These two words are in sharp contrast.'
4. 'If the sentence were being spoken, there would be a stress on this word.'
5. 'This word wants thinking over to yield its full content.'
6. 'This word is not playing its ordinary part, but must be read as the word "___".'
7. 'This is not an English word or phrase.'
8. 'This word is the title of a book or newspaper, or the name of a fictitious character.'

If à contrecœur is always italicized, which of the above seems the most likely reason? Rod (A. Smith) 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a #7 with fries, please. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Italics also indicate words whose correct pronunciation is contrary to the usual (obviously, a huge number of largely unnaturalised borrowings will fall into this category). As à contrecœur is pronounced (as per the French Wiktionary) as /a kɔ̃tʁəkœʁ/, or as the semi-naturalised /æ kɒntɹəkɜːɹ/, it warrants italicisation. English archaïsms and dialectal vocabulary sometimes get the italics treatment for the same reason. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it’s worth noting that the 2004 citation does not italicise this phrase. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any personal dislike of diacritics. I am a Spanish speaker and I'm sure cringe inwardly when I see pinata or pina colada (and not piñata and piña colada) in English, especially if people pronounce it that way. But that's immaterial, especially since those are probably the more common spellings, as they have entered the language that way. Instead, what you have been is actively promoting the less common spellings in pursuit of some sort of a pro-diacritics and pro-archaism campaign to give them undue weight in proportion tot heir usage. This is a case in point: of course we are all here debating away an entry on à contrecœur but why was that article created and even given (relatively) extensive citations, while a contre-coeur or any of the common spellings has no article? We're still trying to make sure we have good coverage of common words, and you are busy writing articles like aficionadi, minutiæ, cohære, and encolden. I'm a bit tired of it. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that this is not Raifʻhār Doremítzwr's ‘fault’, it is mine. I created the entry for à contrecœur (and, as Dmcdevit notes, didn't create a page for a contrecoeur) after a discussion on whether any English words were (could be, if you prefer) spelt with both a diacritic and a ligature. It is not meant to advance The Cabal Agenda™ of subjugating Non-Diacritical Words or any such as that, I have no problem with it being labelled simply as an alternative spelling of a contrecoeur. — Beobach972 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't an "atlernative spelling" of a contrecoeur, it is a French spelling. Neither of those, nor the correct à contre-coeur have been borrowed into English. --Connel MacKenzie 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit — «We’re still trying to make sure we have good coverage of common words, and you are busy writing articles like aficionadi, minutiæ, cohære, and encolden. I’m a bit tired of it.»: You know, that isn’t the only thing I do here. In the past week (that is, counting my contributions from the 19^th day of July onwards): I rewrote branch of government, created organ of state and separation of powers, added and cited none of your bee’s wax, created fish hook, insiduous, criticiser, and Untermensch, cited give stick and Pharmageddon (as well as cleaning up the latter), cleaned-up envy, and added interlard. (This list excludes my adding inflected and conjugated forms, welcoming new users, discussing with others on talk pages and in discussion fora, editting my user page, as well as adding legitimate entries which you’re apparently “a bit tired of”.) You see, I do add “common words”. However, it is my experience that dictionaries are more often consulted for the definitions of rarer, rather than more common, words — for this reason, my contributions of unusual plurals and the like deserve more appreciation than they presently get. As Beobach explained, I didn’t add à contrecœur, so I deserve no “fault” therefor (rather, it is Beobach who deserves praise for adding a word which would almost certainly confuse most readers who came across it). Pinata and pina colada may be more common than piñata and piña colada, but the latter two are still used in English, and should therefore be added (along with a usage note explaining what the tilde denotes and why it is used, as well as, of course, mentioning that the “unadorned” form is the most common). Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; §:Undue weight is a Wikipedia policy, and is therefore of dubious relevance here; I would say that our WT:CFI supersedes it, objectively defining just how significant the minor usage a word enjoys has to be before it warrants an entry herein. Furthermore, all alternative spellings are supposedly equal, which precludes any complaint as to which spelling houses the “primary” entry. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 09:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While you do contribute a lot with citations, the particular choice of what you cite personally annoys me also. It is my observation that your selections to not ever seem to be "neutral." But that is far off-topic here. Yes, citations that include the terms in italics are invalid for RFD/RFV purposes. That is a long-established practice, (that you personally have encountered before, IIRC,) for all the obvious reasons. For diacritics, in general, my objection is not to them per se, but to calling them English. British English may possibly be much more liberal than American English for retaining irregular symbols from French. Very few are actually used and even then, never colloquially. (For example, cafe, not café; the latter is used in advertising only, not written by English speakers.) Borrowings that are used typically will use italics to show they are not part of English. Using diacritic forms of borrowed expressions can only be done to convey an extraordinary air of pretentiousness, and only "works" in hyper-formal writing styles. No evidence has been given that this term exists in the English language, nor that it is in common knowledge of a typical speaker. To call it English suggests that English speakers might understand what it means. That is absurd. The only way this term is known, is as a French term. For this term, my inclination is that the English section should be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Connel, if you replace most uses of "English" with "American English" in your above comment it might be more accurate. As you say British English is seemingly a far more liberal language than your variety of American English - indeed so are the varieties of AE spoken by other contributors here. Many British English speakers do use diacritics - café is almost certainly the most common as it is a very common word and in BE it is pronounced differently to cafe (and indeed carries a different shade of meaning - a "cafe" is a lower-class establishment than a "café" is). When writing, particularly formal contexts, or otherwise where the pronunciation differs from what the standard native English orthography would give and the distinction is important to the context. Their use in informal contexts is probably declining due to their non-appearance on the standard QWERTY keyboard, however this does not mean they are used only pretentiously. Unless I am mistaken, this is the English Wiktionary, not the American English Wiktionary, so please treat all varieties of English as equal to each other, and please stop assuming that other contributors are trolls/otherwise the scum of the earth just because they don't agree with you. Like Ruakh, I am finding assuming good faith on your part to be increasingly difficult.

While cafe was possibly a poor example, I most certainly did not say this is en-us.wikt - don't put words in my mouth. The topic is not that bad example, but a term that clearly is not English. I suppose I should apologize for feeding the troll. (See, it an effort of good faith that I reverted my first response - evidently I was wrong to do so.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe you, offhand, that people write "café" in casual e-mail messages in England. Nor in essays, letters or other normal colloquial use. I can't think of what you might offer as evidence, but it seems astronomically unlikely. --Connel MacKenzie 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In a casual email, unless it was contexually important to distinguish a "cafe" and a "café", most people would use "cafe" to mean either, the more formal the writing the greater the likelihood of the accent being used. If the writer is familiar with writing French words/seeing them written (which a Brit is probably far more likely to be than an American, given the relative proximities to France. French and German and/or Spanish are also taught as standard subjects in most schools here as well, I don't know if this is the case in the USA) then they are also more likely to use accents. As I said, British English differentiates the pronunciation of "cafe" and "café" and so the accent is also used where it is necessary to record the form spoken in writing. The same is true of other words where a diacritic is used to represent other pronunciation changes where the distinction is not provided by context, needs reinforcing, etc. I can't think how to prove this though. Thryduulf 20:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point I had forgotten; UK computers use international keyboard layouts, right? On a US keyboard, it essentially is not possible to enter "é". You'd first need to look up the key-sequence (on a laptop, that that would require memorizing at least nine keystrokes...but different on each keyboard, different with each OS, different with some versions of OS, different if the Unicode character set is loaded, etc.) So perhaps, because it is theoretically possible on a UK keyboard (it is, right?) then I suppose I can understand the possibility of it happening. I have never personally seen an international keyboard, only pictures of them; I suspect it isn't legal to buy or sell them here; low consumer demand is quite different from no consumer demand. No store I've been to here has ever had one for sale, though. --Connel MacKenzie 04:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the topic at hand, I agree with, well, just about everyone other than you, that just because a word is in italics doesn't mean it automatically fails the use-mention distinction. It does mean it might fail, but it is no guarantee. See might in this and the previous sentence for example. Thryduulf 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a very strange definition of "everyone other than you" - perhaps you mean you and your cohorts? Ruakh has expressed very clearly on his talk page that his is 100% biased against reason, in favor of anything Doremitzwr does or says. Everyone else seems to think he is just trying to pull another fast one. This has had very long-standing understanding; if you are trying to show somthing is absorbed into the English language, you don't use citations that have italics. A casual search of the word "italic" shows Wiktionary: pages going back years...I don't know exactly when it was first raised as an issue (the mention I see on the fourth or fifth or sixth or seventh re-nomination of User:TheCheatBot mentions the concept out-of-hand numerous times by numerous people.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(TheCheatBot stuff was early 2006 - so you might want to search archives from 2005 if they haven't been deleted.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)