Talk:disna

RFV discussion: July 2019

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

disna

Really? Where did this come from? Any quotes? ALGRIF talk 22:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The definition is wrong, it represents "does not", not "doesn't". DTLHS (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but is this usage English, or Scots? C.f. Scots dinnae, alt form dinna, with the first syllable arising from Scots dae -- which has the third-person singular form dis, presumably yielding disna in the negative. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, I just found that disna is included at [[Wiktionary:Requested_entries_(Scots)#D]]. Can we tell if disna is also English? If not, perhaps we just need to change the language header in the entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding words shared by Scots and English

There are so many as to defy easy counting. On dialect continua, one cannae draw bright lines for many individual lexemes, as for example between Scots and Scottish English, which many a bilingual person has fluidly interlaced. Regarding the question posed above in 2019, "Can we tell if disna is also English?"—It is, precisely because it has been used and understood in Scottish English many times, even if some observers might try to insist on loanword status as opposed to naturalized word status, but that point is more academic than practical. Wiktionary contains hundreds of words, perhaps thousands, whose entries should have *both* English and Scots headings, because the same word has been used in both of those languages many times. One may as well ask if any of thousands of Leonese words is also Spanish: of course many are. Although that analogy is not perfect (and predictably it may induce some Scottish people to want to fight passionately about how different Scots is from Scottish English, just as home teams everywhere will always fight for emphasis on identity differentiation), it is relevant in essence. In both cases, Wiktionary probably hasn't barely begun to have the large population of dual headings that it would need to begin to approach realistic comprehensiveness and accuracy. That gives anyone here something to work on and to look forward to building, but it also makes the discussion above seem a little misguided. One last point: When one talks about which words are words in English or not, one must remember that English ≠ solely standard English and that English has no unitary language authority to define precisely where all the edges of standard English even lie. To make clear why these facts matter, regardless of any (quixotic) fight that anyone may want to have about whether gonna or ain't or goin belong to standard English or not, no one can credibly claim that they don't belong to English. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)