Talk:quaterseintsinquantaquàter

RFD discussion: May–August 2018

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.

---

quaterseintsinquantaquàter

Per WT:CFI: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI." SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Other ones (currently): duśeintsinquantasèt, duśeintsinquantasē, duśeintsinquantòt, quaterseintquarantanōv, quaterseintquarantòt, quaterseintsinquantadū, quaterseintsinquantaquàter, quaterseintsinquantatrī, quaterseintsinquantùn, quaterseintsinquànta, quaterseintveintedū, quaterseintveintquàter, quaterseintveintùn, quaterseintvèint, quaterseintùndeś, seintquarantaquàter, terśeintdòdeś, terśeintestantadū, terśeintestànta, terśeintnovantadū, terśeintnovantanōv, terśeintnovantaquàter, terśeintnovantasèt, terśeintnovantasìnc, terśeintnovantasē, terśeintnovantatrī, terśeintnovantòt, terśeintnovantùn, terśeintnovànta, terśeintquatòrdeś, terśeintquìndeś, terśeinttrèdeś. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Italian has similar entries: quattrocentocinquantaquattro. They too need to be considered. 87.92.53.164 23:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Found a Finnish term that should also be deleted: seitsemässadas. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like all of these pass CFI which, as you quoted, allows for entries that are single words. -Stelio (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The keyword is separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI. (e: These have no idiomatic meanings, so they're basically sum-of-parts.) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the entries I linked aren't single words, they're multiple words all chained together. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. In languages where words are normally separated by spaces, anything written together is lexicographically considered a single word. This principle is the entire reasoning behind WT:COALMINE. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: we have indeed traditionally considered any string written together without spaces, in a language that uses spaces to separate words, to be a single word. Compare the also-easily-decomposable nonraven (non-raven) and antidisestablishmentarianism (anti-dis-establishment-arian-ism). Numbers have been somewhat more controversial than other words in this regard, but even then precedent has been to keep them, as in Talk:neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig. - -sche (discuss) 15:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But anti-, dis-, -arian and -ism are bound morphemes, I think this makes a big difference. Per utramque cavernam 15:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Then compare doghouse or newspaperman or Talk:Zirkusschule. - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I think there's a continuum of inclusion-worthiness of compounds. It would be stupid to delete all compound words under the pretext that they're SOP, but imo it's equally stupid (sorry) to keep all compound words under the sole pretext that they're written as single words. Some are strongly lexicalised and we absolutely want them, some are more or less random associations (and simply happen to be attestable...), and some are anywhere in-between.

      Though I don't know what to think of compound numbers. They can hardly said to be "random associations" since they follow a prescribed pattern, but at the same time I don't really see the point. --Per utramque cavernam 16:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - To tell the truth, there is no great evidence about how our numbers have to be written... But we can read what my Emilian colleague Mirandolese wrote about this here where, in particular, the numbers above one hundred are written as one entire word. --Glo (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have started a BP discussion on the wider topic of single-word terms for large numbers here: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May#Large numbers. -Stelio (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Consider sending them or some of them to RFV; are these Emilian items attested (WT:ATTEST)? Keep in RFD: they are single words, as per e.g. Mahagaja and per Talk:Zirkusschule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• These en.wikt Emilian numbers pages come linked here from Eml.Wikipedia, where these pages remain over there approved in their writing form. --Glo (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Despite me myself opening this, it's quite obvious the consensus is to keep. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)