Talk:hahaha

RFD discussion: January–March 2014

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.

---

hahaha

• hahahaha

I honestly think that we should stop at two. I don't really want to have to create hahahahaha, or hahahahahaha based on this precedence. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that the version with five ha's has been repeatedly created, so we should probably protect these from creation, or even better add them as regex to our MediaWiki:Titleblacklist so someone doesn't get the idea of typing in a long string of concatenated ha's. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we can just delete the senses for these and redirect the entries to haha while protecting them from further vandalism, to satisfy anyone who would actually search for long versions of these terms. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How come aha and ahaha don't have entries as onomatopoeia for laughter? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: no CFI-relevant reason for deletion stated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Dan is right; this is a matter for RFV. However, most of them (if cited) should probably be {{alternative form of}}s redirecting to the most common form. Ƿidsiþ 11:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  I admit the haha* entries are somewhat pointless; RFVing them won't help: haha, hahaha, hahahaha, hahahahaha, hahahahahaha, hahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahahaha at Google Ngram Viewer (courtesy of {{R:GNV}}); *"hahahahahahahaha", *"hahahahahahahahaha" were not found. OTOH, they are includable per CFI and there are 6 of them, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a matter for RFV, where these two words would pass easily. Both are well attested, even outside of Usenet. I agree with Widsith that they should be alternative form entries. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Three is prosodically a very common number of repetitions for words such as this one. Four, on the other hand, isn't. --WikiTiki89 16:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect all iterations of more than three "ha" units to hahaha, with a usage note on the page indicating that additional repetitions of "ha" can be added to show longer bouts of laughter. This is basically what we did for what we did for great-great-great-grandmother when the number of "greats" was brought up. I recall that we once had a discussion about usages like this, helloooooo, heeeeelp, and noooooo, but can't put my finger on it at the moment. bd2412 T 18:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep hahaha, but hard redirect all attested forms with more than four has to one of the shorter ones (either haha or hahaha, I don't care which), per BD, per the precedent case of great-great-great-grandmother, and per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/July#Spelling_variations_by_introduction_of_repetitive_vowels_for_emphasis. (The obvious exception is if hahahahaha or such turns out to be a word with some other meaning in another language, while simultaneously being attested as a representation of laughter in English; in that case, the entry's English section would have to soft-redirect.) - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the one - thanks. The phenomenon is also evidenced for constructions like "lalalalala" and "tralalalala". bd2412 T 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep hahaha. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And hahahaha? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Undecided about hahahaha. It doesn't seem common enough to me. Perhaps using normal citation rules is best to determine the inclusion for this. Anything longer than hahahaha - perhaps a redirect, similar to greatgreatgreatgrandfather, etc.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to this. I'd like to see some answers (not just from you by the way) about the two questions I also posed above, about how we would consider writing future definitions for the entries start with 'a' aha, ahaha, ahahaha, etc. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with using a hard redirect for repetitions of four or more. --WikiTiki89 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This closed RFD discussion might help: Talk:great-great-great-grandmother (I couldn't find it quickly, LOL, wasn't sure how many "great's" there were and if it was a "... grandmother" or "... grandfather". :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Somebody already mentioned that above. --WikiTiki89 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. TeleComNasSprVen must have missed that too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The result of that linked discussion should be documented somewhere, preferably on the CFI page, and much like the widely used WT:COALMINE discussion was often cited for keeping entries falling under that scope. It'd make it easier to see and generally more prominent, and I'd hate to be back here again if I forget this RFD discussion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but the maximum number of iterations in a full entry should not be fixed and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --WikiTiki89 04:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason WT:COALMINE is cited so often is because it's not a discussion- it's a vote. Love it or hate it,it's set in stone until modified or repealed by another vote. Previous discussions are useful guides in making decisions, but are only as authoritative as the consensus in later discussions makes them. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should have a vote? --WikiTiki89 06:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, and I think there should be a set number of repetitions of an element of a word beyond which every additional iteration redirects to the base form with a usage note. These are not different parts of speech or even unpredictably different meanings. The word "hahahahahaha" trivially means the same thing as "hahahahahahahaha". bd2412 T 13:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, does anyone think that our entries for "ha" units beyond a certain number, say three or four, convey any idiomaticity to them, i.e. are they, by their very existence, fundamentally different in conveying meaning than the third or fourth iteration? Or is it simply that the act of repetition itself is idiomatic, in that it adds a semantic "emphasis" as meaning for each "ha" unit? Take two versions of "ha" with different iterations, and compare the semantics of one against another just as you would with any other pair of words. (I'm trying to think about, were we to have a vote sometimes in the future, how best to address these, so feedback and answers appreciated.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What you're missing is that we keep headache because it is written together. There does not need to be anything non-sum-of-partish about "hahahaha", since the parts are not considered separate components for the purpose of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you saying? headache and CFI have nothing to do with this, I'm asking whether the word has semantic meaning beyond extending the number of "ha" units, whether the act of repetition itself more idiomatic than the word it produces. I don't see how that translates to "hahahaha" being sum-of-parts or not. BD2412's solution is quite elegant and simple, redirect the entries to the most citable, most idiomatic form of repetition, while leaving a usage note that the act of repetition itself is idiomatic instead of giving them separate definitions and entries. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can only repeat myself in different words. "hahaha" is written together, it contains no space, unlike "ha ha ha ha". So "hahaha" is not analyzed for sum of partness. Its being written together without space is enough to block the sum-of-partness analysis. This is the case with "hahaha", headache, coalmine and Tanzschule.

Re: "CFI have nothing to do with this": CFI has everything to do with this. It is WT:CFI#Idiomaticity that drives this discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what I meant was that your comparison to headache makes no sense. Of course 'hahaha' is not being analyzed for sum-of-partness; the 'togetherness criterion' prevents that from happening, and headache is culturally speaking more than just head + ache. I'm going to repeat my italicized words again: is the iteration of the word itself more idiomatic than the word it produces? hahahaha is definitely a word that can't be considered sum of parts, but it is probably not as idiomatic as the fact someone meant to type an additional "ha" unit for emphatic meaning. I do not know why you constantly refer to 'sum of parts' for this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "idiomatic" is, in CFI, redefined to mean this: 'An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components', as per WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. "sum of parts" in RFD discussions means exactly the same thing as "not CFI:idiomatic". If you read the definition I just posted, you'll see that it is connected with something being or not being a sum of its parts, hence the RFD jargon "sum of parts" or "SOP" or even "NiSOP". I recommend reading some past RFD discussions, since these are RFD basics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we, then, have hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha and hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha and hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, if they are attested (which they are)? bd2412 T 20:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is what CFI says. We can drop them contrary to CFI, but I do not see much of an advantage. I do not oppose soft-linking or redirecting; it does not make much of a difference anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Having a redirect (which I would support) is not the same as having an entry. bd2412 T 03:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the context of the past discussions that I've observed, in particular the television show discussion, I will quote Atitarev and Wikitiki89 on this one:

@Wikitiki89 (after an EC) If you look at the history of this page or at the list of parts of speech in any language you speak, you will see that there is no such thing as "accepted meaning of SOP". Don't accuse me of misusing the term, "petrol station" and "television show" (and others I listed) can equally be idiomatic or non-idiomatic depending on who you ask. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not talking about idiomacity. SOP-ness is a related concept but is not 100% correlated with idiomacity. A word can be idiomatic and SOP at the same time. I agree that many editors misuse SOP, but in a logical discussion, words need to have predefined meanings or no one will understand anyone else. --WikiTiki89 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So with that in mind, idiomaticity probably refers to the sense of conveying meaning. Which I applied again not to the word in question, which is definitively a word, but in particular again to the act of repetition itself, which is not documented and easy to find anywhere except in usage notes about sociolinguistics and social contexts. We have no entry for repeating oneself for emphasis because the idiomaticity describes an action rather than a word. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I want this to be more than just about CFI; I want this to be about how we think we should include and best handle repetitive entries, and we should if they past the attestability criterion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a further debate on my talkpage about an issue with CFI tangentially related to this one, if anyone wants to check that out. My only regret is that now, after having had a look at Dan's history as I had minimal interaction with him previously, I obeyed the impulse to respond to him rather than ignoring the "you have new messages" banner that annoyingly pops up, silently taking note of and listening to his message, and then continuing to work on entries I feel best suits the dictionary. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If we vote on this, then we can add a relevant section to CFI about repetition, and then their inclusion/exclusion will be a matter of CFI. --WikiTiki89 03:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are exactly my thoughts. We need CFI to speak more clearly about what to do with this, otherwise we'll have another whole debacle again. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't think anything else needs to be said to bring this to a vote, I have initiated Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The vote on repeating syllables has been closed favorably. Since the policy enacted by that vote would generally have us default repetitions to the form having three repetitions, this should now be kept as the target to which versions with more "ha" repetitions should point. bd2412 T 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)