Talk:inha
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.
Entry: "Inha" [edit]
The entry "inha" isn't the correct definition of the word "gross" in Finnish and should be removed, thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by 69.118.68.135 (talk) at 22:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
- NSK says it's chiefly used poetically and the synonyms include paha, vaikea, hankala, häijy, kova, ilkeä. Thus it may express a multitude of negative aspects and thus "gross" is not all wrong. The entry needs to be worked on, however, and I'll do that this weekend. Anyway, deletion would be too gross a reaction. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I only tagged it because of the message above without the intention to get it deleted. Consider the nominatior the IP user above. I'm sure it'll pass RFD. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The provided synonyms reveal an incongruity with "gross" as a definition for "inha". Your assistance is deeply appreciated.
- It's done. Feel free to improve. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"Gross" has many defintions and would be best replaced by another word to ensure a proper defintion, thanks.
- I think that mentioning it in the list "appalling, gross, disgusting" defines the sought-after sense sufficiently. In the examples given, gross could be used as translation for inha, don't you think? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
To non-English speakers the ambiguity may require further clarification, hence the need for a more suitable synonymous adjective. The manner in which "gross" is defined in the entry is also informal. More importantly, the second definition of "inha", as presented currently in the entry, applies exclusively to "inho". Would recommend only keeping the poetic defintion of "inha" as defined in NSK.
- Keeping only poetic definition would definitely be wrong, because since the days when NSK was compiled (1960's), the word inha seems to have acquired new usage. One can hardly call Iltalehti a poetic publication, or Rosa Liksom's prose poetry. I have two questions to you. First, do you agree with the translations "appalling" and "disgusting" for the second sense? Second, I repeat my previous question: do you think that "gross" is an incorrect translation for inha in the two usexes given? --Hekaheka (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Neither "appalling" nor "disgusting" apply to the proposed second defintion of "inha" - "gross", informally referenced, is incorrect for the uses given as well. Furthermore the synonyms "inhottava" & "tympeä" refer strictly to "inho". The provided synonyms for "inha" in the NSK allude to the second defintion being "disturbing", "difficult", "tricky" or some variation thereof. Truly fitting given the belaboring effort to discover the proper defintion.
Thank you for your diligence & patience.
- -- Furthermore the synonyms "inhottava" & "tympeä" refer strictly to "inho". -- Exactly, that's the point. All the modern usage that one can find, at least by googling, refers strictly to "inho" . That's the very reason for having the second sense. It may be a misconception, and you may not like it, but that is the way the word is currently used. It's normal evolution of the language. Wiktionary is not a normative dictionary, but a descriptive one. Therefore, we must have the second definition, no matter what NSK says. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)