Talk:rational-shmational
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sgconlaw in topic RFV discussion: October 2018
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Any takers? I can see some usage with a coma instead of a hyphen. And I think the definition is not quite right. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- This IP persistently adds words like this and they have been blocked before- all of their contributions should be checked. DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Are there any English (, shminglish) nouns (, shmouns) or adjectives (,shmadjectives) that cannot have this kind (,shmind) of reduplicative (, shmeduplicative) construction (, shmonstruction)? Not all may be attestable, but are any of them entry-worthy? Since the shm- word always appears with the word it derives from, it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to expect someone to realize that [[shm-]]/[[schm-]] might be worth examining. DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- “Are there any English nouns that cannot have this kind of reduplicative construction?” Try schmozzle :). --Lambiam 09:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted by Equinox. It may be worth considering whether to add an entry to "Appendix:English snowclones", if this is in fact a "thing". — SGconlaw (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is definitely a thing in English as spoken in the US by native speakers of Yiddish, their children, and imitators (eg, comedians). This has come up before, but I don't think anyone has taken up the challenge. DCDuring (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted by Equinox. It may be worth considering whether to add an entry to "Appendix:English snowclones", if this is in fact a "thing". — SGconlaw (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- “Are there any English nouns that cannot have this kind of reduplicative construction?” Try schmozzle :). --Lambiam 09:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Are there any English (, shminglish) nouns (, shmouns) or adjectives (,shmadjectives) that cannot have this kind (,shmind) of reduplicative (, shmeduplicative) construction (, shmonstruction)? Not all may be attestable, but are any of them entry-worthy? Since the shm- word always appears with the word it derives from, it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to expect someone to realize that [[shm-]]/[[schm-]] might be worth examining. DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it was part of a sequence of low-quality shite added by a schmozzle. In any case we should not have any entry for clever-schmever or big-schmig, because we already have schm- prefix. Equinox ◑ 00:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- So to try to close this: we already have shm- and schm-. What more do you want? Blood? Equinox ◑ 01:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, I think no further action is required. Future entries along this line can be speedily deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is basically the same as pig Latin: not even a snowclone- just a morphological rule. Out of the 310,545 current entries in Category:English nouns, there are about 2 dozen that won't work this rule in some form. While I'm not anticipating an entry for
prezygapophysis-schmezygapophysisany time soon, this straightforward of a morphological rule isn't enough lexical content to warrant a whole class of new entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)