Talk:पोरच्युगीज

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

A Google search only gives Mediawiki sites and mirrors of them. The correct term, which gives millions of hits, seems to be पुर्तगाली (purtagālī). Saimdusan (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per RFD discussion. Striking.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

पोरच्युगीज

The only Google hits that I can find for this are Wikimedia sites and mirrors of them. The correct term is पुर्तगाली (purtagālī). This needs a cleanup at the interwiki as well, because erroneous entries have been created over at the Italian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Portuguese and Romanian Wiktionaries too.

The term पोरच्युगीज (poracyugīj) isn't even present anymore at (deprecated template usage) Portuguese as a translation, so I assume someone else must have noticed the mistake earlier but not nominated the entry for deletion before Tbot created it. Saimdusan (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an adaptation of the English word Portuguese, not a misspelling. Move to RFV. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 01:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely the adaptaton of the English word would be पोरच्युगीज़ (poracyugīz) (ending with /z/ rather than /dʒ/); if so, then this is a misspelling after all. —Angr 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and as far as I can see there's no evidence that either of these terms. We can't just put every English word in Devanagari and call it an "Anglicism", they have to be terms whose use in Hindi is actually evident. This doesn't seem to be a case like स्पेनी (spenī)/ہسپانوی (hispanvī) where the Anglicism and the traditional term are used in different standards of the language, or सर्बियन (sarbiyan)/सर्बियाई (sarbiyaī) where both appear to be used in both standards.Saimdusan (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added to WT:RFV as per Ungoliant's recommmendation. Saimdusan (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Until you came across it, it was tagged as a Tbot entry. ("This Hindi entry was created from the translations listed at Portuguese. It may be less reliable than other entries....") If you're sure those are wrong, you can simply mark them with {{d|explanation}}. I'm deleting this.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)