Talk:defendernos

Deletion debate

See also [[Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010#May 2010]].

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.

---

defendernos

This is a contraction rather than a word, and it's totally sum of parts. This is why I find our obsession with single word/multi-word terms and SoPness bizarre. We could delete cat-like as SoP, but not this. Delete, not a word, just a contraction. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, delete. It's just defender + nos. If we are to accept this entry, then we'll have to create hundreds, and probably thousands of others of this sort : irnos, encontrarnos, lavarnos, amarnos, preocuparnos, etc. That would be a nonsense. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 12:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Ruakh_TALK 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For reference, we have more than 1300 of these and some in Italian, if not other languages. Given the number of Spanish pronouns and the number of Spanish verb forms we already have, such a category could contains more than a million entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be consistent about this. If you are going to delete defendernos, I expect you to delete all entries in Category:Spanish combined forms and Category:Italian combined forms. Nadando 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think separate discussions are needed for (1) Italian entries; (2) entries for compounds such as créeme (“believe me”) that in writing receive an accent mark; and (3) entries for compounds such as comámonos (“let's eat ourselves”) that lose an <s> or /s/. But aside from that, I agree. —Ruakh_TALK 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ruakh. Let's not be hasty about this. Let's debate this and see what happens after that. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Perhaps we can compile a list of proposed general guidelines, with specific examples where the guidelines do and do not work well. Then, individual languages can set the specifics based on what we've accumulated. That is, I don't expect many (or any) guidelines to be 100% applicable, but we should be able to formulate ideas that will elucidate the problems and will guide choices in specific languages. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to define all words in all languages? I don't speak Spanish, but it does kinda look like a word to me. We include contractions in English, why not this particular one in Spanish? ---> Tooironic 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Because contractions in English are a fairly small, finite set. Whereas the 'verb + pronoun' set in Spanish is infinite (ok, not technically infinite, but incredibly large). The idea of including everything which is a word (i.e. is written without spaces) is fine for English (and even there we've made exceptions), but does not work for all languages, notably agglutinative languages. Each situation really needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So a person is expected to know how to create a compound of verb + pronoun in Spanish? I think we should provide at least specific instructions, since I don't know any Spanish word defenderusted or defendernosotros. I'd say keep this, because expecting knowledge from the user that defendermos means "defender" + "nos" is not much different from expecting that he already knows that defendería means "defender" + "ía". --Daniel. 02:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps a reasonable criterion for whether an SOP construction like this merits an entry is whether it merits a slot in the inflection table. Because, of course, the lemma should link to any and all of its inflected forms. If the es folks feel that adding these forms to their inflection tables is feasible and desirable, then let them do so, and then we can consider this entry worthwhile. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of general criteria, but ultimately I think we'll need to apply those criteria to each individual langauge and create language-specific guidelines on the "About" pages for each langage. Most (all?) Iberian languages have some kind of pronoun-to-verb suffixing, but the form of that suffixing varies within and between languages. Spanish sometimes adds/removes an accent, and there are languages where other spelling changes occur, but those changes are predictable (if you know enough). I imagine that similar sorts of patterns occur in other languages, and so I am not sure that we can make a general and definitive statement about how things should always be done. However, we can compile a set of guidelines with examples, and then propose language-specific application of those guidelines. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• keep. Let the Spanish bots create these. So what if it creates thousands more entries. They're all words, right? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this in the past, and I've said to keep all such, and I still say so. This is English Wiktionary, and to an anglophone a word (not including CJKV and similar) ends at a space or punctuation mark. We should likewise keep German compound nouns IMO and Hebrew words with prefixed ל־ et al. Of course, only attested ones.​—msh210℠ 15:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

keep. The general criterion already exists: is defendernos a word / a word form? The fact that this is a contraction is irrelevant: would you remove French words au and du? The fact that there might be a very large number of such words is irrelevant too: is it more absurd that the objective of accepting all words in all languages? And, furthermore, keeping it is useful. It's not the same as contractions easily recognizable as such and never considered as single words in the language (such as n'avons). Lmaltier 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One such discussion, by the way, is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2008/April#Treatment_of_certain_types_of_compound_terms and the following section, #Treatment_of_other_types_of_compound_terms. But there were others, too.​—msh210℠ 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lmaltier, I think you've made my point for me. I don't think you can compel people to consider this a word, clearly three people don't. I think it's comparable to mothers', I actually think I could find a rationale for keeping mothers' more easily, as saying it sum of parts of mothers and ' sounds silly. Having read the above, weak delete per Daniel., Rising Sun, Lmaltier, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning: is it considered a word form in Spanish-speaking countries? For example, is it accepted in Spanish Scrabble? Is it considered a word form by Spanish teachers and grammarians? This question has nothing to do with SOPness.Lmaltier 06:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus (myself, Daniel., Rising Sun, and Lmaltier said to keep, and Mglovesfun, Ruakh, and Actarus to delete). Raise it (again) at the BP if you like.​—msh210℠ 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: May 2010

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

---

defendernos

Def. given is an etym.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The same holds IMHO for almost all definition lines of verb-forms, e.g. the definition of gave is Simple past of give, which also could be considered an etymology rather than a definition. Matthias Buchmeier 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah nothing to clean up. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But is this not a lemma?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that this should be deleted as SOP, as it's simply defender + nos. Any pronoun can be attached to basically any verb to indicate its object. My Spanish is a bit rusty, so if I'm wrong here, please let me know. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: in Spanish, a personal-pronoun direct or indirect object of an infinitive, gerundive, or imperative is attached to it as an enclitic. The only tricky part is that it's written without any space or hyphen or anything, so the verb-form takes an accent mark if necessary (so, for example, háblame = habla + me). —Ruakh_TALK 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always wanted to see these deleted. I don't consider these words, so they don't pass under line 1 'all words in all languages' and they're not idiomatic, far from it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I you plan to remove them, then probably all other non-idiomatic compound-words will have to be removed too. That means a huge number of non-idiomatic compounds (e.g. a large number of noun-noun-compounds in English, German etc.), including words like farmhouse, doghouse and so on. Matthias Buchmeier 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. (PS, this should be at RFD, not here). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's not be too hasty, here. Each language has its own quirks, which merit being assessed individually. Deleting defendernos, or even all Spanish verbs with pronouns attached to them does not mean that we're going to delete every word which is SOP. With the houses you mentioned, there is a rather small, finite set of words like them. One could well say cathouse, and it would arguably be sensible, and yet no one does. A doghouse is an item with a distinct size, shape, and purpose, and metaphoric meanings as well. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)