Talk:first-person singular

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

Sum of parts, no better than masculine plural, masculine singular etc. I think these might have already been at RFD but they are used in a lot of pages that use conjugation templates. I'd advocate a bot going round and changing them to [[first-person]] [[plural]]. PS will tag some more of these now. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep, set phrase; though maybe an only in glossary would be adequate. Conrad.Irwin 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We could start an article for first-person dual for languages that have that. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No other one-look dictionary has them. But here w:Anything Goes unless a newbie does it. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep all - no other dictionary has them because we are better than other dictionaries (or, at least, we have the potential to be). SemperBlotto 08:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But what's the advantage over [[first-person]] [[plural]] as two links? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly the definitions are much clearer than trying to juggle first-person (took me a while to work out that all it meant to say was "alternative form of first person") with singular; secondly these phrases appear all over the place, it is very likely someone will look them up together. What is the advantage of [[first-person]] [[plural]]? Conrad.Irwin 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Both words meet our CFI, this seems not to (not even close). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Common sense always overrules ``policy´´ (and ideally fixes the policy at the same time, but not so much at the moment), the policy was written by people like you and me who, with finite capacity for correctness are liable to have made mistakes. So, I ask again, what is the advantage of having only the two words separately? Conrad.Irwin 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, do either you or SemperBlotto think that these meet our criteria for inclusion? Because neither of you has said that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's a word or phrase that someone would come across and want to know what it means. To me, it somehow seems to mean more than the sum of its parts (but I don't know why). SemperBlotto 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it actually does, I haven't read that page in detail for ages, but, if it doesn't the policy is at fault and not the word (which to my mind clearly conveys a distinct meaning, is frequetnly used and is (as I've heard used in previous RFD debates, though never defined) a "set phrase"). For further reading see WT:IDIOM, a list of words that have passed RFD, but no-one's entirely sure why. Do you believe it would be better for the dictionary to delete these words, if so, why? Conrad.Irwin 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically because we shouldn't keep stuff that's not dictionary material just because it would be difficult to remove all links towards. It's hard to be neutral when you know that. If I created first-person dual, nominative singular and common plural would you want to RFD them or not? Not rhetoric, please answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what these terms mean - please define them SemperBlotto 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not RFD them, obviously they fall into the same category as this word which I want to keep... Conrad.Irwin 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete all. SoP. --Yair rand 23:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, delete.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June 2022–July 2023

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.

---

first-person singular

first-person dual

first-person plural

second-person singular

second-person dual

second-person plural

third-person singular

third-person dual

third-person plural

SOP. I had a good chuckle though when I saw that their definitions are literally the parts linked individually. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Note. Someone has since rewritten the definitions, but not in a way I consider satisfactory. For one thing, these concepts do not only apply to verbs and pronouns, but also to a variety of other grammatical aspects in various languages – for example, the Turkish suffixes of possession. (This applies to our inadequate treatment of first person as well.) And IMO "the dual of the first-person form of a verb or pronoun" is meaningless; there is no such thing as "the first-person form" that has a dual.  --Lambiam 11:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete the lot. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 04:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you then at least suggest definitions other than the current ones, which inform those thirsting for enlightenment that second-person plural means “second-person plural” (resounding duh)?  --Lambiam 13:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• My gut is that we should keep these, since we are a dictionary, and we enjoy using phrases of this sort. Also, I never knew there was such a thing as a 'first/second/third-person dual' until this discussion. bd2412 T 07:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  They can be explained in an appendix, in case. There's no need to have them as individual entries. Sartma (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Did you know there was such a thing as a dual until this discussion? PUC – 12:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  You mean in the sense of a grammatical case for precisely two subjects? I was vaguely aware of it existing, but had never heard of or thought of it being in terms of grammatical person. bd2412 T 06:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, these are not just SOP (at least the duals and plurals), cf. the lengthy discussion in Anna Siewierska's Person. But before adding intricate definitions (e.g. differentiating between the 2+2 (multiple addressees) and 2+3 (single addressee plus others) use of second-person plural), is it the job of Wiktionary to serve as a dictionary of linguistic terminology? –Austronesier (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete per Lambiam, until and unless non-SOP definitions are provided (per Austronesier). PUC – 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Might possibly be useful translation hubs if nothing else. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Only tangentially related to this, I have just noticed that the Translation section of English we is a mess. The "exclusive" box serves as a kind of default space for a lot languages that actually do not have a clusivity distinction, while some non-clusive languages (French, German, Arabic etc.) are represented in both boxes. Maybe it makes more sense to have a main box for clusivity-neutral equivalents of English we, and to restrict the "exclusive" and "inclusive" boxes to languages which do have distinct 1p excl. and incl. pronouns? –Austronesier (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep, same conviction as bd2412 + Austronesier's rationale. The definitions just need to be updated. AG202 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

“... just need to be updated.” That’s a tall order. As pointed out above by Austronesier, whole monographs have been devoted to the topic of grammatical person.  --Lambiam 12:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam I have started trying to update them, to at least destubify them, see: second-person plural, though it doesn't feel satisfactory to me just yet. I actually also found that the fr.wikt definitions are more wordy, but do get the point across more clearly and are more open, see première personne du singulier, which I feel could be translated here well, though it would need to include more than just the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and verb forms as you've mentioned. I'm just not 100% sure of the phrasing, so I've paused for now. (Pinging @SemperBlotto as well since you've participated in a related discussion in the past) AG202 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You have some gall complaining about "RFDs sometimes coming down to literally opinions of editors with no policy basis", when your vote is literally just that ("same conviction as bd2412", who's talking about a "gut feeling"). Just dropping that here, though; I have no interest in getting into a debate over this. PUC – 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@PUC Please don't drop attacks like that and then say "I have no interest in getting into a debate over this", that's just poor form. To me, this is not SOP per Austronesier's rationale. And then, this section is actually policy if you've read through WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." which imho is what bd2412's rationale relates to. Also, as stated in my comment on the discussion, I specifically mentioned "with words being deleted", which I've gone into more detail in in my comments on WT:IDIOM not being applied as it should be. If you have genuine critiques that's fine, but please don't come for me again like this while taking my comments out of context and not being well-versed in policy. AG202 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I know you specifically mentioned that. You're a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, of course you'd complain about entries being deleted. This is the reason why I'm attacking you in the first place: you see, what I can't stand is inclusionists taking the moral high ground, presenting themselves as the upholders of reason and argumentation, when they are often the most biased of all and will grasp at every straw to support their POV - like you just did with this ridiculous clause from the CFI. But I've said my piece. Hopefully I've got it out of my system and won't bother you again. (I'm mostly staying away from RFDs nowadays anyway.)

PS: don't take it too personally, I've been rude to bd2412 too, here and here. PUC – 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@PUC If you'd actually paid attention, you'd see that I've voted for entries to be deleted. And even if I were a diehard inclusionist, I still have not lobbed personal attacks at editors who are deletionists, and at least try to act in good faith. I'm not presenting myself as the be-all know-all with RFDs, I've archived a ton of RFD discussions even ones that I don't believe should've been deleted, and have often deferred to other editors when it comes to participating in them (@BD2412, @Fytcha, @Imetsia). The original comment in Beer Parlour came from a place of frustration, and to be honest, some entries were closed against policy, like non-Canadian, since folks did not follow or know about WT:IDIOM. You claimed that my vote wasn't in line with policy and so I provided multiple examples of policy that can align with this. If you disagree with that policy analysis, that's fine, but it's rather unbecoming of someone, especially someone who just became an admin, to openly attack and berate folks like that. It's hard for me to not take it personally when it was lobbied directly at me. AG202 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And honestly, my initial comment was taken completely out of context. I mentioned that line to show that we don't keep every word possible, meaning that our motto of "all words in all languages" doesn't align with what actually happens here, meaning that it should be updated. That was the whole point of the discussion in Beer Parlour. I accept that some RFDs end up that way, and have come to accept it as being part of Wiktionary as a whole. Plus see the policy that I've been strongly pushing for for months: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation_criteria_for_derogatory_terms. If I were as "inclusionist" as you claim, I would not be arguing in favor of those terms being limited, so please at the very least make sure that you're aware of what's actually been going on before you attack folks. AG202 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for lashing at you like that. As I mentioned in the conversation I linked to above, RFD debates don't bring out the best in me... PUC – 21:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete SOP + ridiculous tautological definitions... Sartma (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

See also: WT:PRIOR which maybe could apply in this instance. All the definitions, while far from perfect, are also no longer tautological. AG202 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep per AG202. Binarystep (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I was about to nominate these myself for deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I haven't seen a convincing argument that, say, second-person dual does not mean the same thing as second person + dual. One can always include some encyclopedic content (or just extra words) to make it look superficially as if an expression was idiomatic. We do have an encyclopedic source that we can refer our users to. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep all. Putting things in an appendix as suggested near the top of the thread fall just barely short of deletion since the appendix space is well-hidden. Likewise, bundling the already well-detailed definitions into the parent pages like second person will make them very cluttered, and I imagine if we do that people will just delete them later on. So I think it's best the way it is now. —Soap— 12:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete all as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)