Talk:hoc

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

hoc

English: As used in ad hoc etc. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, since there don't seem to be any non-Latin coinages using it, and anyone who visits [[hoc]] should be satisfied by [[hoc#Latin]]. —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we handle these cases in this way. Delete, weakly should someone propose that we do. DAVilla 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

EncycloPetey has won my full vote. DAVilla 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep, because it's useful to readers (and to automated tools used by them, too). Readers looking for it don't know what seems obvious to you, they don't know where the phrase begins and where it ends. Lmaltier 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete; this isn't a word used in English to form English sentences. We wouldn't create cinco as an English entry just because Cinco de Mayo has gained widespread English use, and wouldn't create gallo as an English entry just because of pico de gallo. --EncycloPetey 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Another example: I would add a sense (a soft redirect) in the French section of go, because tout de go is used in French, and that people are likely to consult go when they read it. Would you find this addition useless? We must keep simple (sound) principles, even when they seem strange at first view in some cases. Lmaltier 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why not. It's not an independent English word. Just as blue is not a Spanish word despite the existence of los blue jeans in Spanish. Consider also that the Latin phrase caveat emptor is used widely in English. From that phrase, the Latin (deprecated template usage) caveat has entered English as a word in its own right, but (deprecated template usage) emptor has not. The fact that a phrase has crossed linguistic boundaries does not mean that the component words have done so as well. --EncycloPetey 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't have this as English. But Lmaltier has a point; perhaps {{also|ad hoc}} at the top of the entry would be a fair solution. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a major change in the way we use {{also}}, and would lead to a huge list being added to the entry for ad. I don't favor the idea. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think putting the phrases that have entered English under an "English" bullet point in a "Derived terms" "Descendants" section of the Latin entry would be the way to go. Not only that (that I think that's a solution if we want a link somewhere), but I think we should do so (that is, we want a link somewhere).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Ruakh/EP, but definitely link to the English phrases, as discussed above.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with msh210: delete, but list ad hoc#English as a descendant of hoc#Latin. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, let me clarify something: I consider that including an English section for a word does not give it any status, does not mean that it's a true English word (e.g. it would be very difficult to me to consider that autoroute is an English word, or highway a French word, but the inclusion of an English (or French) section is justified nonetheless). It only means that the word is used, not only mentioned, in texts written in English. Again, people are likely to select them and use a tool such as Wikilook to get their sense in the language (I don't think that Wikilook selects the right section according to the language of the website, but it could). The only possible problem is the POS: a special POS could be used when no normal POS is possible. Lmaltier 07:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with that philosophy. Consider that the works of some English writers, such as Agatha Christe, will pepper their works with French terms in italics. In the context of the work, the words are themselves noted as foreign through italicization. With hoc we've got the additional issue that it's only part of a foreign phrase, and note that it could appear in the text of any language as ad hoc is a common Latin expression. It would be silly to therefore create a language section for hoc for every language in which the Latin expression is used. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Silly? Why? Is it silly to be helpful to readers? Lmaltier 20:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You could have something like 'uiohuigh is not a word in English', and use that as a citation to justify uiohuigh. That's what springs to my mind. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, first because it's only a mention, not a use. And because we check that a word really exists before including it. Lmaltier 05:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Lmaltier, you would have a page for hoc with entries in Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Finnnish, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, etc., where the entry says effectively "This isn't a word in this language, see the Latin section that would have been easier to find without all this extra clutter"? --EncycloPetey 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)