Talk:scil.

RFV discussion: November–December 2023

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

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

---

scil.

RFV for the abbreviation of Latin scīlicet as used in German. The first thirty results of google books:"scil." don't bring up anything German that I can see. 0DF (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@0DF: try searching for both "scil." and "dass", you'll find a lot of uses in (older) German texts. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

See for example http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=scil&k=Bibliothek , and Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (by Hjalmar Frisk, 2nd vol., 1970, entry ἐπῴχατο, added inside a Greek passage), and "scil. <article>" at google books which brings up many many results; e.g.:

• Herders Conversations-Lexikon, Kirche: "Kirche, die (abgeleitet vom griech. κυριακή scil. οἰκία = Haus des Herrn) das Gotteshaus;"
• Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, Mâschallâh: "Mâschallâh (arab., eigentlich mâ-schâ-allâh , »was Gott will«, scil. geschieht),"
• [1]: "so ist das Eine (scil. die Eins) noch nicht Zahl, das andere (scil. das pure Vielerlei) nicht mehr Zahl."
• [2] "der Brit. HK [scil. der Britische Hohe Kommissar]"

— This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.34.66 (talk) at 17:15, 29 November 2023.

Weird kind of things OP searches. I deny that scilicet is German, scil. as German should be deleted. As ibidem it was considered all the time Latin. In philology one could just casually switch to Latin. To this day nothing has changed, ibidem in bibliographies is considered translingual but not German, scilicet people studying non-linguistic sciences don’t even know and it is restricted to edition-language. Fay Freak (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's rather wishful thinking and not how it's done at WT, cp. e.g. Talk:ibid.#RFM discussion: November 2020–April 2022, or in some other dicts (e.g. elevated scil. in: Duden; dictionary.com, Collins – common etc. in: Vandale, TLFi). — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.34.66 (talk) at 19:49–20:30, 29 November 2023.

Thanks for seeking out the discussion, where wishful thinking has won (granted, wishful thinking, I partook not of, is how it is done at WT). The dictionaries are not multilingual. There is no “translingual” for them, so they add some translingual content encountered in German. There is a reason why German Wiktionary (which I do not edit) has not included either. It is accepted with Germans this way, for bibliography terms in particular, even if one disagree to consider e.g. or etc. translingual.

No criteria for distinguishing non-translingual have been provided. Being used in German is not sufficient a condition for something to be German, being of an individual language is not default for a term, a language vocabulary is not defined negatively as everything used in the language not proven translingual; one can conversely require for terms not formed within native grammar to meet criteria of nativization. Why is the manicule ☛ or → translingual but scil. German? There is zero coherence in Wiktionary. Fay Freak (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried consicely formulating your criteria for what is translingual and what are loanwords? As far as I can tell, on wiktionary translingual is currently for: "terms that remain the same in all languages" (from Help:Language_sections#Translingual). Since scil. is used in some but far from all languages, I think it doesn't qualify. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Translingual is not and never has been only for terms found in all languages. For example, individual Hanzi characters have Translingual sections, and those are not found in all languages by a long shot. Likewise individual letters of the Latin alphabet or the Cyrillic alphabet. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Characters, letters, and the like are really an altogether different category from Translingual words. They're not words, or parts of words, etc. They only represent words in writing. Why are these together in Translingual? Is it really only a basket for all things which don't belong anywhere else? How about:

A word or symbol is Translingual if it doesn't change in translation.

This doesn't catch scil. because the concept is expressed differently in many languages. But it does catch Hanzi characters because they don't have translations; instead they're either used or they're not, depending on the language's writing system. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that Hanzi characters don't necessarily have translations. While 水#Translingual doesn't say so explicitly, I think it's safe to say it means 'water' in any language that uses it. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It may be splitting hairs, but there's a conceptual distinction: the reason (I think) there's no meaning in the Translingual entry is that it's for the character, not the word the character typically denotes. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja, 93.221.34.66, Fay Freak, Caoimhin ceallach: Now that this entry has four supporting German quotations, can we deem this RFV passed? I am neutral on the issue of whether scil. is German, Latin used in German, or Translingual used in German. My only concern is that whatever the entry is notes that scil. is used in German; that is the fact which I consider verified. 0DF (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That is so. Used in German. Fay Freak (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say so. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV passed for verification of use in German.
@Fay Freak: You may wish to add {{rfm}} to scil.'s English and German sections and begin a merger discussion for them at Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits. 0DF (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2023–January 2024

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

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

---

scil.

RFV for the abbreviation of Latin scīlicet as used in English. I'm aware of sc., sciz, sciz., and sciꝫ (though the last is hard to search for because of OCR limitations). An anonymous editor drew my attention to scil., which Dictionary.com lists; however, the first thirty results of google books:"scil." didn't bring up anything in Modern English (plenty of Latin and a Middle English one, though; see Citations:scil.). Is this real? 0DF (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@0DF: search for both "scil." and "that" and you'll find a fair number of uses in modern English. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Right you are. Thank you. I've added three English citations to Citations:scil.; I expect they're sufficient. 0DF (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: RFV passed? 0DF (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. It depends on how the RFV for scil.#German pans out on the issue of whether uses in German-language texts count as evidence for it being a German term or just a Latin term used in German texts. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I think that's an issue for WT:RFM (or WT:RFD?), rather than WT:RFV. I don't think Fay Freak would contest that there is abundant evidence of scil.'s use in both English and German, only what that evidence signifies. 0DF (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Passed, but with the explicit caveat that we should revisit this if at some point in the future the page has hundreds of language sections instead of just a few. I note that we seem to have no problem considering e.g. e.g. to be English and etc. pp., etc. to be German, though. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, -sche. I may add a Middle English section for it, seeing as it's attested in the context thereof, but as I wrote in Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#scil., I am perfectly happy for you, Fay Freak, or anyone else to propose the merger of these entries via {{rfm}}. 0DF (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)