Talk:epicaricacy

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alternative spellings[edit]

I believe that the "alternative spellings" are actually alternative transliterations/romanizations of the rare Greek word. We don't consider transliterations/romanizations to be English. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of Melancholy[edit]

  • Robert Burton (1621) The Anatomy of Melancholy:
    Out of these two arise those mixed affections and passions of anger, which is a desire of revenge; hatred, which is inveterate anger; zeal, which is offended with him who hurts that he loves; and {{el:epikairekakia}}, a compound affection of joy and hate, when we rejoice at other men's mischief, and are grieved at their prosperity; pride, self-love, emulation, envy, shame, &c., of which elsewhere.

Is there a cite that goes with this reference? — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 21:26, 2 May 2008.

I searched the online edition at google.books.com and didn't find it in there. Is it there with a different spelling? DCDuring TALK 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See w:The_Anatomy_of_Melancholy, Google books does not have everything... Indidentally shouldn't the usenet cites be the other way around? Conrad.Irwin 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough the (WARNING 3.3MB) Gutenberg edition doesn't contain "epicaricacy" according to Firefox's find tool. Conrad.Irwin 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google did have an edition of "Anatomy of Melancholy". I guess a proofread version would be better if there were scannos on the word in question. DCDuring TALK 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novobatzky[edit]

The ostensible quotation from Novebatzky appears in his book about words of insult. It appears there without attribution as a kind of usage example. I would ascribe it the attestation value of one of our made-up usage examples without further information. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0 attestation value, just like our usage examples. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khará, not kháris[edit]

"Kháris" is most often used with the meaning of "grace" rather than "joy". The opposite is true for "Khará". This alternative spelling of "epichairekakia" is probably a result of confusion between the two.

Interesting factoid: to Greek ears, "epicaricakia" sounds like referring to "the evil on top of someone's head", due to the word "kara", "head" (see Antigone: "ω κοινόν αυτάδελφον Ισμήνης κάρα" and please excuse my quotation from memory).

Funny little word. Stassa (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea room discussion[edit]

Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.

I was looking for the word epicaricacy, only to find it had been deleted. I'd like to put in a definition for the word, my workup is here: User:Evrik/epicaricacy. I have contacted a number of users, who have contributed something to the write-up.

I'd like to go ahead and post the word. It cannot be done because it is listed on Wiktionary:Protected titles/Persistent protologisms. I found the archived deletion discussion. I have contacted the admin who has deleted the page 2x in the past - but he has refused calling the word "a nonsense term incorrectly used."

As you can see by my work-up, the word has references, citations and usages. This is a real word. It has a number of g-hits, and some very real references. I think its problem is that it is {{rare}}. I believe that the word is being held to a higher standard because its previous write-ups may not have been well-written. If you look at the deletion discussion, it was rather short and brief. The word is used, has print references and I'd like to see it be added to Wiktionary. Thanks. Evrik 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be on the edge of meeting WT:CFI. In its earlier spelling it might warrant inclusion on the well-known work rule (Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy). It has 2 usenet citations of debatable quality. It has a citation in a book on words that is in the nature of a usage example. It was used in an academic working paper. I don't think it has yet made it, but it is not nonsense. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think we should have it. But it does NOT appear in Burton - he uses the Greek term, in Greek characters. Widsith 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to have good enough citations to actually meet CFI. There are a few other words that more clearly warrant inclusion. See wiktionary:Requested entries:English for other ways of spending your free time.
My grounds for entering epikairekakia were that it was cited in a well-known work. It appears that what was in the original was the Greek spelling, so the rationale might only apply to the Greek spelling. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good enough citations? It's referenced here:
    • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
    • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
    • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
    • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
Those, plus the current citations should b good enough for inclusion. Evrik 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not good enough for citation. As has been mentioned more than once, all of the secondary sources are mentions. Please see WT:CFI and w:Use-mention distinction. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've recreated it, on the grounds that a Usage note may be the best way to deal with all this fuss. The printed sources are certainly poor, but it does crop up on the net now and again, mainly from people saying "what a strange word". I've just noted that there is little evidence of real usage, and moved the citations to the Citations: namespace. Widsith 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least Wiktionary will be on the top of some search results pages. DCDuring TALK 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion[edit]

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.

epicaricacy[edit]

This has previously failed with several spelling variations in the past. Resubmitted again without citations, this is a shoot on sight, still, right? Perhaps if more admins paid attention to it... --Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wiktionary:Tea_room#epicaricacy. delete This hasn't yet been shown to meet CFI, despite considerable efforts by several people. We should keep the citations page though, as it does contain useful information. Conrad.Irwin 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has three cites. It certainly can't be shoot-on-sight. How are the cites unsatisfactory? Groups is going to make many of these words rarely (never?) used in print more likely to find some real usage in durably cited media. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:epicaricacy&oldid=75836622"