Talk:Anglicism

Untitled

Part of the "anglicisms in french" part of the article is directly lifted from some essay on the internet.

Can you point the url where it was taken? drini ☎ 02:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"...been found to translate online chat. The word clavardage is increasingly common. This neologism is a portmanteau word coined from the words clavier (in English, keyboard) and bavardage (in English, chat). A further retranslation, French into English, may be "keystering", partly from keister meaning buttocks. is proof that there is more than one way to skin a cat.)... " Is it proper to have an English idiom in here?

• No, but that's not the point. The bit about "keister" is Patent nonsense, so I'm removing it. Cheers. ThePedanticPrick 19:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories

While it maybe interesting to see Anglicism in different languages, this article would become pragmatic with nothing more than little paragraphs showcasing different languages and their treatment to some universal English words over and over again. I would prefer this article to categorise the types of anglicism instead. See the [[1]] version for this article for ideas. Each categories maybe illustrated by examples found in various languages of course.--Kvasir 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC) this is bullshit

Dunglish

Dunglish is not the same as Anglicisms. I suggest to remove the link to Dunglish and start a paragraph about Anglicisms in Dutch.83.117.225.78 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish

Isn't it much more likely that kil (keel), maszt (mast) are loanwords from Germany? It is true that the origin is probably English, however the word has been found in Germanic languages at about 10 AC. If you call that an "Anglicism" you could go as far as to say: There are no Anglicisms, because almost every word in English is either Germanic, Latin or French which would make e.g. 25% of them "Latinicisms". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.62.35 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Italian

Since my mother tongue is Italian but I live in the German part of Switzerland, I think that anglicisms are much more used in German than in Italian, at least in the written language. Just have a look at any Swiss German free newspaper (20Minuten, Blick am Abend) ! I wouldn't write that "Italy is the country in Europe where anglicism are most used, without alterations (without source)". One of the countries. But not THE. M89arco (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Capitalized or not?

I'm writing a thesis on Anglicisms in the German language and have been capitalizing the term. In this Wikipedia article, it seems the capitalization, or lack thereof, is haphazard. I don't care if it's upper or lower case, I just think it should be consistent. Which brings me to my question: should the term be capitalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:8880:B580:8D71:2888:E4A9:9776 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Use both capitalised and uncapitalised at the start of the paper separated with an "or", then pick whichever you prefer and use that throughout. English (unlike German, and unlike many other languages) has very few hardfast rules, and this particular class of words -- nouns that are not proper nouns but are derived from proper nouns -- seems to be completely variable either way. An exception would be a word that has a different meaning when capitalised vs uncapitalised. The only word I know of that is like that is Marxism vs marxism, but there may be others.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Original research

The article is almost entirely based on original research and unsourced assertions. This is somewhat understandable, because everybody feels like an expert in their native language (and sometimes, in others as well). However, Wikipedia's core principle of verifiability is very clear on this point: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable, and that: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

It should be noted that adding an inline citation consisting of two definitions, one from an English dictionary, and one from a foreign dictionary of the same, or similar-appearing word, may verify the meanings of each, but that does not verify the foreign word's status as an anglicism; that would be WP:SYNTH and thus still subject to removal as unverified. Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but for a word to be verifiable as an anglicism for this article, you need a single source that says it's an anglicism; often, a foreign etymological dictionary or article may be the source for that. (A good example of that is ref 'JP' in the Polish section.) Failing that, the example can be challenged, and removed if no source is forthcoming. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Built in bias?

The detail within sections that discuss different languages' absorption of Anglicisms is often wildly disproportionate to the relative importance of the languages themselves; e.g. German Anglicisms are discussed in three lines, French in thirty-four. Meanwhile, other major languages, such as Spanish and Russian, are not represented at all. This may be one of those articles where Wiki's 'all may contribute' principle runs counter to its rules on neutral POV, since a native speaker, being best informed about his language's nuances, and likely most interested in it, is thus far more likely to contribut​e regarding it. Short of a committee of polyglot linguists even-handedly and comprehensively redesigning the whole article, I see no way to oust its inevitable lack of balance. Humboles (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Humboles:, what looks to you like bias, is actually more about the fact Wikipedia is a volunteer project; that is, people work on what they feel like working on. You can't complain to their "boss", either, because there is no boss. If you perceive a bias, then WP:SOFIXIT as the essay says. That is, just step up as a volunteer, and make the improvements to the article that you would like to see, while of course paying attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is never a moment when the article is "done", as it can always be worked on by other editors.

That said, I don't disagree with you about the effects of native speakers, but rather than trying to make the article perfect by a committee of polyglot linguists, one of the principles of crowdsourcing and collaboration is just to make incremental improvements bit by bit. You can be part of that incremental improvement, if you're willing. Even a wholesale redesign of the article is possible; although since other editors have worked on it for a period of fifteen years, it would be a courtesy to discuss a wholesale redesign here on the Talk page first, before engaging in it. If you have good ideas about how to improve it and a knack for persuasion, I don't see why your ideas wouldn't carry the day.

But in order to persuade others, you have to come up with a plan and propose it here first. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it's easy to point out the problems one sees in an article, but proposing a framework for improvement requires a bit of work. Are you willing to take that step? Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathglot. I have long been, earlier under different aliases, an experienced Wiki editor, detail-amending and contributing, yet occasionally drastically overhauling ​— in particular, over-lengthy film summaries. A detailed response to your points would break Wiki guidelines by making this more a forum discussion than a Talk entry, but briefly: the Wiki method makes it impossible to retain balance in a page such as 'Anglicism', partly for the reasons of serendipitous taste that you mentioned, but also because no one contributor can, root-and-branch, overhaul such a broad-spectrum article. Could any individual, personally, possess the comprehensive knowledge needed regarding the current, subtle and ever-changing idioms in all the major languages? I ironically theorized that such a task would take the co-ordinated efforts of a specialist panel of native speakers, who could agree which languages got what editorial space, then regularly review the whole. But, yes, I know this simply is not the Wiki way ​— and, no, I do not propose it should be. The consequence is that we must accept a chronic lack of balance is endemic in Wikipedia articles such as this. We live with that ​— but new users must appreciate this is inevitable since (to reinforce your own point) there is no over-arching Britannica-style editorial structure. An example pitfall would be to equate, for example, the length of a contribution for any language ​— or its total omission! ​— with its relative Anglicism content, or as a measure of its comparitive importance as a language. Humboles (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Adolf hitler

Adolf hitler was a Christian’s who spread the gospel. He loved Jews so much and decided to put his life for them 2600:1700:4EE0:87A0:502:3FD9:B5E6:A699 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)