Talk:Protologism
Add topic | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
2006
[edit]Note: This is currently a cross-namespace redirect, which is bad. The AfD vote concluded as delete. It makes most sense for it to be a cross-reference to Wiktionary. --Cedderstk 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2009
[edit]2009 Update- Protologism now widely used word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.45.129 (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
2011
[edit]The section to which this term used to redirect to was removed. Here is the diff to the original content: -- Ϫ 04:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Paleologisms
[edit]A coined word that fails to achieve further traction in usage is a paleologism.[1][2]
- ↑ "paleologism". YourDictionary. LoveToKnow Corp.
- ↑ Roger, Philippe (2006). The American Enemy: The History of French Anti-Americanism. Translated by Sharon Bowman. University of Chicago Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-226-72369-3.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
I removed this material. The first source merely cites Wiktionary, which as a user-generated website is not considered reliable; the second source mentions the term only in passing (in a translation from French), and so would not seem reliable as a general source on the meaning of the term in English. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen it used elsewhere, but it has nothing to do with this article, and if it's included at all, it would be a subtopic at Neologism (which would also be an acceptable fate for the present article). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed it again, where it was inserted using the same source as above. Besides being a translation from French, the source doesn't explicitly define the term, but merely uses it in passing:
Using this source to define the word paleologism requires citing it out of context, verging on original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 01:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC))It is impossible to remain ignorant any longer, Lafargue says; the word trust is in no way a neologism. On the contrary, it is a kind of paleologism, a primitive signifier, "a word from a barbarian time."
— Roger (2006), p. 252
- I've removed it again, where it was inserted using the same source as above. Besides being a translation from French, the source doesn't explicitly define the term, but merely uses it in passing:
Additional source
[edit]Gryniuk, D. (2015). "On Institutionalization and De-Institutionalization of Late 1990s Neologisms". In Malec, W.; Rusinek, M. (eds.). Within Language, Beyond Theories (Volume III): Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics and Corpus-based Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 150. ISBN 1-4438-7822-7. This process [of lexicalization] does not seem to be coincidental because neologisms themselves are prone to go through certain stages of transformation. They begin as unstable creations (otherwise called protologisms), that is, they are extremely new, being proposed, or being used only by a small subculture [...]
{{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl=|chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Added to article here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016 additions
[edit]A distinctive feature of a protologism is that its meaning is unstable and is used only within a small subculture.[1] A protologism has also been viewed on occasion as an attempt to popularize a word in the hope that it eventually gains traction into usage by lexicographers and the mainstream population.[2] The adoption of protologisms is most prominent in compartments of Anglo-Saxon literature.[3] The propriety of the protologism has been juxtaposed with other morphologies in the English language such as slang, jargon and unattested appropriated non-English terms.[4] The term protologism is synonymous with the term univerbalism, although protologisms have more practical purposes.[5]
- ↑ Gontsarova, Julia. "TARTU UNIVERSITY NARVA COLLEGE DIVISION of FOREIGN LANGUAGES."
- ↑ Meltzer, Peter (2015). The Thinker's Thesaurus: Sophisticated Alternatives to Common Words. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780972993784.
- ↑ Carbrillac, Remy (2008). La recodification civile en France. University of Avignon. p. 55. ISBN 9782357680029.
- ↑ Salmon, Charles T. (2010). Communication Yearbook 34. Routledge. p. xv.
- ↑ Müller, Peter O (2015). Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Three ed.). Walter de Gruyter. p. 1757. ISBN 9783110375749.
This material (added December 2016) seems dubious, or at least poorly-sourced. I suspect some editorial synthesis to be at work (The part about univerbalisms is accurate, but its relevance to the article is unclear – like most of this text, it uses academic jargon without explanation or context). Any help verifying this material would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) (updated 04:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC))
Title italicization
[edit]Why is the title italicized? Sangdeboeuf says MOS:WORDSASWORDS doesn't not require that titles for terms be italicized, but that doesn't convince me, especially because I've personally only ever seen italicized titles for things like films, rather than for terms like neologism, whose article notably isn't italicized. Furthermore, WP:ITALICTITLE says italic titles should be used for articles about "taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases." This article doesn't fit any of those. (I would also imagine that the introduction should put "protologism" in boldface, rather than bold italics, just as the neologism article does.) AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- This article is about the word protologism itself, as per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, not protologisms as a class of words. Cf. Thou, Orange (word), and No worries. (Neologism is a different case, as that article is about the class of words known as "neologisms".) The examples under WP:ITALICTITLE are just that – examples – and are not necessarily comprehensive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah. That does make sense. Thanks for the explanation! AutisticCatnip (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Year of coinage
[edit]Peter O. Müller also claims "Ėpštejn" coined the term in 2003. Wiktionary has articles that predate the 2005 claim, e.g. DAVilla (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
No comment? I went ahead and updated. DAVilla (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"Vmorp" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Vmorp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19 § Vmorp until a consensus is reached. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)