Talk:substantivu

"hypercorrect"

Maybe see the following for a definition of the term "hypercorrect":

• hypercorrect: "incorrect because of a mistaken idea of standard usage"
• Appendix:Glossary#H: "Incorrect because of the misapplication of a standard rule"
• [1]&[2]: 'of, relating to, or characterized by the substitution, in an inappropriate context, of a pronunciation, grammatical form, or usage thought by the speaker or writer to be appropriate, resulting usually from overgeneralizing in an effort to replace seemingly incorrect forms with correct ones'
• [3]&[4]

If still trying to claim it's hypercorrect, it has to be explained why or how it should be hypercorrect, which rule should have incorrectly been overgeneralized or misapplied.
For comparision:

• octopi is hypercorrect, and thus wrong, as it's not second declension -us (gen. and pl. -ī) in Latin, but third declension –pūs (gen. –podis)
• apparati is hypercorrect as it's not second declension -us but fourth declension -us (gen. and pl. -ūs) in Latin
• ethoi is hypercorrect as it's not second declension -ος (pl. -οι) in Greek, but thhird declension
• avocadi is hypercorrect as it's not from Italian (-o, pl. -i) but Spanish (-o, pl. -os)
• kneweth is hypercorrect by Germanic and English etymology (knowen, cnawan, *knēaną: 1st and 3rd sg. past is the same). Same for other 3rd sg. past forms in -eth
• orthœpy is hypercorrect as it's, etymologically, no diphthong but ortho-ephy
• Pædion would be hypercorrect, if it's from Greek ε. However, if it's from a later Latin form with æ/ae, it could be a regular non-hypercorrect term in English.
• phanaticism would be hypercorrect, if it's from Latin or Romance only spelled with f. However, if there's a later Latin form with ph or an Romance form with ph - which might be hypercorrect -, it could be a regular non-hypercorrect term in English.
• palaeoanthropology, et ceteræ - the entries explain it

-12:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 84.161.1.228 (talk).

But that's exactly what it was - "incorrect because of a mistaken idea of standard usage" - it's also the reason why it never caught on and was only used by a few scholars. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE

No, and also that the spelling didn't catch on in later years doesn't make it hypercorrect. At best it makes it "nonstandard" after the standardization of Romanian. Even A. T. Laurianu's and J. C. Massimu's -tione (as in prepositione, which didn't catch on either), as uncommon, rare, nonstandard, proscribed and whatever it might have been and might be, is not hypercorrect. It's rather comparable to English iland (now obsolete form of island), mee (now obsolete form of me), w:en:Benjamin Franklin's phonetic alphabet, F. G. Fleay's Victoʹrian Alphabet, which all didn't catch on in modern English but are all non-hypercorrect, than to any of the English hypercorrections.

But well, the English WT entry is badly worded (once again...) as it can lead to a misunderstanding. Thence take the others definitions. Additionally there are:

• w:en:Hypercorrection: "hypercorrection is a non-standard usage that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of grammar"
• hypercorrect: "of, relating to, or characterized by the production of a nonstandard linguistic form or construction on the basis of a false analogy"

For the English terms above it's quite obious to see where the misapplication, overgeneralization, false analogy is (at least with some knowledge of Romance, Latin, Greek, Germanic):

• The rule that English nouns in -us derived from Latin have plural -i does only apply to nouns from Latin's second declension, not to third and fourth declension. Changing third or fourth declension -us into plural -i is thus a misapplication of plural -i, an overgeneralization of its usage or the rule where to use it. Or alternatively, fitting better to OED and M-W, English apparati was formed "on the basis of a false analogy" with English terms like focus, cactus, fungus (all with plural in -i) and incorrectly changing the -us of apparatus into -i. The analogy is false, as apparatus is derived from Latin's fourth declension and not its second.
• Ligature œ is only used for a Latin diphthong œ/oe. Using œ for o-e or with trema oë (two syllables) is thus a misapplication of the ligature, an overgeneralization of where to use œ.
• -eth like -s was only used in present. Using it in past is thus a misapplication of -eth and an overgeneralization of a rule like "-eth is used for 3rd sg. present" by omitting the tense restriction. False analogy is present in incorrectly forming knew-eth (knew as past stem + -eth for 3rd sg.) like know-eth (know as present stem + -eth for 3rd sg.) albeit -eth being only correct for the present tense.

And now for Romanian. Where is any "misapplication of a standard rule" or an "overgeneralizing" of a rule or "false analogy" for the Romanian term? -08:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 84.161.19.2 (talk).

It was a rule that (some) scholars applied to nouns when they were trying to Latinise Romanian – it's as simple as that and makes it by definition hypercorrect (non-standard usage that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of grammar). Their intention was to approximate Romanian to its closest living relative Italian and adding -u to masculine nouns became an imposed orthographic norm. If I may ask, how well-versed are you in Romanian philology? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)