Talk:deponentale

Does this meet CFI?

Using the Latin name of a word in a half-Latin book teaching the Latin language doesn't strike me as an especially good source for declaring something a Low German word. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Korn:

• It's a usage and it's durable archived, and GML is dead language and a WT:LDL. So it meets WT:CFI.
• It's the same as using computer (or Computer, or other anglicism for which e.g. see Category:French terms borrowed from English) in languages other than English. And these anglicisms are considered to be words of the non-English language in wiktionary.
  Same also applies to Latinisms as Verbum and Adjectivum or Adjektivum used in German - and Adjektivum with k can't be Latin anymore. Even Duden has Verbum and Adjektivum: www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Verbum and www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Adjektivum .
• The example is a usage and not a mentioning, but it's not a Latin usage (i.e. a usage in Latin). That is, deponentale could be a MLG word, no word, or a word of no language, but not a Latin word. It's a word. Being a word not belonging to any language is impossable at Wiktionary (maybe except for some Translingual stuff like ISO codes). So it can only be a MLG word.
• It's also similar to e.g. serpens. serpens is a Latin-German adjective used with Latin-German nouns. And "Ulkus serpens" used in German can't be Latin anymore because of the k.

To sum it up: It should without doubt be a GML loan word, a latinism or pseudo-latinism. A label or usage note however could be added. I imitated serpens and added some information.

-84.161.20.120 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't counter the question whether this is a usage with 'it is a usage', I'll need a bit more of an argument. I can form the sentence 'In Japanese, a negation is called 否定形'. That does not make 否定形 a Japonicism used in the English language, it's simply a Japanese word used in an English sentence talking about that Japanese word, i.e. a mention and thus not enough to satisfy the CFI. The Munsterian grammar is not actually using the word deponens/deponentale in a sentence, it is referring to it in a sentence about itself (the word deponens) in the context of explaining the grammar of the original language of the word. And that does not constitute a GML use. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The question was "Does this meet CFI?" and not "Is this a usage?". WT:CFI requires more than a usage, namely that the usage must be durably archived. And I'd answer that it is a usage (in MLG and not in Latin) and that it is durable archived, and thus does meet CFI.
As for your English example, with "called" it's IMHO a mentioning, not a usage, and thus does not meet CFI. If in a Latin text it's (translated) "the Greeks call it [Greek name or transcription of the Greek name]", then it shouldn't attest a Latin term. (However, sometimes such mentionings are included in dictionaries and in Wiktionary as at rosmarinus#Synonyms. Though they might fail a RFV if there were one.) For the same reason it's rather a mentioning not attesting anything in "unde heth darumme deponens edder deponentale" ('and because of that it's called [term]'). This is also the reason why there is no synonym section with MLG deponens. "luctor is ein verb[um] deponentale" however is not a mentioning anymore but a usage. It's not "luctor is called a verbum deponentale (in Latin)", but "luctor is a deponent verb". It's a usage like of MHG vocalis or NHG Verbum, Adjectivum, Adjektivum, serpens, or of anglicisms or other latinisms in other languages. -84.161.20.120 19:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That is in fact a proper argument. So by that logic, if I find a text book saying: "In Japanese, a negation is called 否定形. 知らない is such a 否定形." I could enter 否定形 as an English term? (Disregarding that English requires three independent cites, obviously.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As for a German comparison: In 17th century NHG one can read things like "Nachfolgende Verba, vnnd welche davon herkommen:", "Von denen Verbis. Deren seynd fünfferley [...]", "Hingegen bey denen Verbis Passivis Commun. und Deponen. von der andern Persohn [...]" (from [books.google.com/books?id=UAlp3fieYEwC]). And words of Latin origins are even declined like Latin words (with all six cases). In the 18th century one can find "Von den Adjektivis." (from [books.google.com/books?id=lrphAAAAcAAJ]), where "Adjektivis" is written in Fraktur and not in Antiqua and with a non-Latin k. With k it can't be Latin anymore, so it must be German even if it uses all six cases. In 21st century one can read "den Computer einschalten", and this is also considered to be German.

From the MLG grammar:

• Some usages of verbum: "wan he steit by deme verbum, dat eine werckinge bedudet", "wen men ein verbum spreckt", "so voghet men em ein verbum indicat. modi to", "so voghen se dessen conjunctien ein verbum coniunctivi modi to", "dit verbum dixit, dat praeter. perf. temporis is, dat maket" (this verb dixit ...), "Lego is ein verbum activum unde bedudet ein werck, wente wan ick lese, so wercke ik, wente lesent is ein werck." (lego is an active verb and signifies an action ....), "unde wan men van einem verbo passivo ein r nempt, so werd id ein verbum activum" (and if one removes the r of a passive verb, then it becomes an active verb)
• Borrowings from Latin which aren't Latin anymore: "in grammatikken", "conjunctien", "by der ersten personen"

Comparing the MLG grammar with NHG, then verbum should be a MLG word for verb. From the overall style, it should be a real usage in "luctor is ein verb[um] deponentale", and thus "deponentale" should be an MLG word.

As for the Japanese comparison: Seeing that English has terms like ʾiḍāfa, ʔAllāt, ǃKung, śarīra, I guess 否定形 could indeed become an English word, if it were actually used. But I guess because the script is so different, English would use a transcription like hiteikei just like other terms in Category:English terms borrowed from Japanese are written in Latin script. As for the fictional Japanese example, it's complicated to compare it. In the sentence above the Japanese term occurs indeed somewhat mentioning-y, mentioning-like. Does the text have 否定形 more often in it? Can it be preceded by both articles, by pronouns (or determiners), by prepositions? Are there Japanese terms in italics inside the text? Are the more Japanese terms which could be or are English usages? If the text uses italics for some Japanese terms, but has 否定形 without italics, then it could be usage-y, usage-like. If the text uses 否定形 more often, with articles, determines, pronouns, then it could be usage-y too. -84.161.20.120 00:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)