Talk:prapraprababka

RFD discussion: January–August 2023

The following information passed a request for deletion (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.

---

prapraprababka

Polish. We really should limit the amount of this specific prefix attached to words. Vininn126 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think we could limit ourselves to prababka and explain the pattern there, but 2 would seem like a good compromise. Any more is retarded, so delete this. PUC – 21:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:great-great-great-grandmother. PUC – 21:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: We limit the number of “repetitions” to three per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Repetitions (“Each attested repetitive form that has no more than three repetitions shall have an entry.”) I am not sure whether it applies here. J3133 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126 agreed, limit it to 2. delete. Shumkichi (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Since this is still here I guess I will say that unless we decide through a group conversaion that the three "great-" limit applies only to English, and that it can be lower for other languages ..... or have another group conversation where we decide that the limit shouldnt be three anymore for any language .... this should be closed as keep so we can move on. —Soap— 08:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Soap But basically no one voted as keep. Vininn126 (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, we can close an RFD as keep if it has an invalid rationale even if the people overwhelmingly vote to delete. I see nothing at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Repetitions indicating that foreign languages are exempt from the rule, or that the rule can be overridden in discussions over individual words other than the two rationales provided at the end, which are both reasons to keep against a default of delete and cannot be used the other way around.

However, it's also not clear that the Repetitions CFI rule was intended to cover terms like this for familial relations ... praprapra- is not a repetition of pra-, at least not in the sense described on the CFI page, which is intended to cover examplse where the repeated word has the same meaning as the single-form word. Perhaps this consensus that three prefixes is the limit arose from an over-extension of the Repetition policy that was intended to cover something else. But then we would have no policy at all, and could RFD all the familial relation words and end up with inconsistent matching depending on how we happened to vote at each individual RFD. I'd rahter have a rule that is applied equally to all languages. Im voting "keep" here as a meta-vote on the process, but if the community decides that we dont need words with three "great"s anymore, then I am okay with that as long as it's applied consistently. —Soap— 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the 2013 discussion linked above could be interpreted as prior consensus which would lead to deletion here, but the people voting then may not have intended their discussion to be used that way, particularly to encompass foreign languages. Still I'd be okay with deleting these terms so long as it is done consistently ... maybe we could keep them as hard redirects, for example, and put a usage note on the page they redirect to. Right now great-great-great-grandfather redirects to great-, not to great-grandfather, which is what the 2013 participants ended up recommending. —Soap— 09:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if we delete, could an administrator please add a note to WT:CFI#Repetitions specifically explaining that it pertains only to grammatical reduplication, and not to terms like this where the repeated morphemes are individually meaningful? Thanks, —Soap— 09:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

praprapradziad

Polish. We really should limit the amount of this specific prefix attatched to words. Vininn126 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about prapraprababka, but praprapradziad seems as a very normal word in Russian because of the accent on the second-last vowel after just two vowels before it, like in Polish. Probably we must wait to find out what the Polish native people mean on this one? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Vininn126 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, should not the limit you've talked about, be limited by a natural accent laws? Of course, if they do really exist. Tollef Salemann (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

prapraprababička

Czech. We really should limit the amount of this specific prefix attatched to words. Vininn126 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What if we can find quotations for it? google books. Bogdan (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bogdan: That's why I didn't send it to RFV. It's not a problem of that, it's more just a problem of usefulness. We don't need long chains of great-great-great because we learn nothing new from it. Vininn126 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

praprapradědeček

Czech. We really should limit the amount of this specific prefix attatched to words. Vininn126 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

As J3133 said in the first subsection, we do limit the amount of this prefix (or any other) which can be attached to words, in WT:CFI#Repetitions: the words above (with "no more than three" pras) are explicitly accepted, although words with four or more would be redirected. I don't think there's anything to do here but keep these; if we want to change the rule, that should be a general discussion, not something decided piecemeal for four words. - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

All kept per WT:CFI#Repetitions and Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)