Talk:Barbarism (grammar)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Political Slant
Ahem! It would appear that this article has a certain political slant.
For example, the use of the word nucular instead of nuclear is a barbarism.
This is of course a dig at our friend "W" Bush. I don't think that stealthy political statements of this sort are appropriate in a politically neutral reference text such as the wikipedia. Political biases should be explicit and do not belong in purely factual articles such as this one.
I don't really care what some people say about the inherent political content of every statement, this particular example is gratuitous.
- Rubbish. The pronunciation as "nucular" was common long before Bush was elected even the first time, even here in Australia. It's a metathesis that removes the consonant cluster and simplifies pronunciation. I think you're reading far too much into this example. This is about providing a common instance of barbarism that most people are familiar with - even if they, like I, have never heard George W. Bush actually say the word. In my humble opinion, this political statement is so stealthy that it's not even a political statement. thefamouseccles 03:00, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
- I added the example back in, it’s gone too long without one. If any other anonymous idiot thinks this common mispronunciation specifically refers to President George W. Bush, first prove that it doesn’t refer to Homer Simpson. If anyone else thinks it isn’t a barbarism, replace it with one. Don’t just delete it and leave the article example-less. —Frungi 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please add an Example
Could someone please add and example to illustrate the difference between a barbarism and a solecism?
[edit] AfD result
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Further objections
My attempt to have this article deleted failed, and I see the force of some of the arguments raised: just because a term is no longer in vogue does not mean WP should not have an article. However, I am dubious about whether there has ever been anything more to say about it than some sort of rather woolly definition.
But my specified grounds for deletion still hold - this is a dreadful article. It does not give any sources (it has a wikilink to Fowler's Modern English Usage, which article does not mention the term, though it is possible that the work does - I haven't checked).
It essays a definition that is so wide as to be useless.
It makes an unsupported claim about the distinction between 'barbarism' and 'solecism', which I would dispute - to me 'barbarism' is simply a more pejorative term for 'solecism'. Certainly, the example that has now been added is in the realm neither of morphology nor syntax, but purely in pronunciation.
I will not attempt to improve this article (other than adding cleanup tags) because I don't believe it should be here anyway. But as it stands it is appalling. --ColinFine 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I changed my mind. I have improved it by replacing the specious factual statement in the intro by a more weaselly one (yers, I do realise that I have perpetrated both a weasel word and an unsourced statement, but that is precisely my gripe with the topic: I think that's the best that can be done with a bad job. --ColinFine 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
