Talk:Barbarism (linguistics)

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)[reply]

This is rubbish--lots of people are guilty of this particular barbarism. It first was noted to me in the context of another president of a different party--Jimmy Carter. Bongomatic (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Nuclear” has been around for a very long time — long before George W. Bush became president. I remember hearing many American people saying it back in the 1990s. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarism vs Solecism

Could someone please add and example to illustrate the difference between a barbarism and a solecism? [unsigned?]

I second the motion! Example, please! [unsigned?]

I find the identification "barbarism - morphology" and "solecism - syntax" to be misleading for several reasons.

It gives the impression that the two words are parallel terms within a theoretical scheme.

Morphology and syntax have such a relationship: they are technical terms with precise meanings, and they are designed to be parallel -- they are at the same level of description, and are (roughly) nonoverlapping and exhaustive within their sphere.

Barbarism and solecism, on the other hand, are only accidentally related, not very parallel, and full of connotations and innuendo.

"Barbarism" refers to foreign words (or possibly phrases), ugly new words, mispronounced or tasteless words, and reflects a negative judgement on the foreign status, bad taste, social status, or lack of education and refinement of the speaker. It involves morphology through choosing deprecated words or misrendering standard words.

"Solecism" refers to errors in grammar but also the logical absurdities that result. It can be either syntax or morphology (through inflection). It expresses a criticism of the argumentation or intellectual adroitness of an opponent (for example).

The word "barbarism" is harsher. "Solecism" is a rhetorical or literary term and more obscure -- even to use it is to establish one's ascendency. It is not likely to be used by a merchant's wife to complain about the language of the servants.

Citations?

84.227.23.27 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The point could be made that this word belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It is not a terminus technicus in linguistics or grammar, it isn't embedded within a theory, it isn't connected with a controversy or historical events.

On the other hand it does have a history (the colorful etymology from Greek), which is the most interesting point in the article. I guess this history is too long for a normal dictionary entry.

BTW the word is by no means outdated. While it plays no role in linguistics, it occurs in literature and in popular books and articles. (3,000,000 google hits.)

84.227.23.27 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Barbarism (grammar) → Barbarism (linguistics). This article deals with all forms of linguistic "barbarism," not just grammatical barbarism. – AjaxSmack 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If you intend to do some work on the article to make worth consulting, by all means move it. If you're just going to move it and leave it in its current sorry state, don't waste your time. (It's just as appalling as it was last August when I proposed deletion). --ColinFine 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English examples

The article says that a barbarism is (paradigmatically) an expression adopted into a language from another language. However, the examples given for barbarisms in English do not appear to be from any language other than English; they just amount to mispronunciations, or errors of usage. The theoretical discussion does not accord with the examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.1.99 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pitcher" for "Picture"

Why is this on the list? The two words sound almost identical since the “c” in “picture” is not really pronounced. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people in your area of the United States (the country that has some area with a dumb dialect that mispronounces something) pronounces "picture" as "ˈpɪtʃər", doesn't mean everyone else does. As a Rhode Islander who doesn't have that ugly Rhode Island accent (and tries to mimic the pronunciation of the Anglo-Saxons when possible), I get enough people trying to tell me that "It's "wʌt" not 'ʍʌt'", thank you very much, so I don't need someone saying that their pronunciation is more correct than mine, thank you. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Era Style Dates

Recently I edited the centuries mentioned in the article to be more clear and in line with the Manual of Style (eg. 3rd century CE). The CE was however removed. I disagree with this edit because I believe that adding CE to the date helps the understanding of the text in case the reader is not already knowledgeable about Roman history. Brinkpw (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "3rd century" unqualified is the 3rd century CE to all readers. I prefer AD myself and object to having CE thrust into articles unnecessarily. The text you modified was text I just recently added. Srnec (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your position. But in the Manual of Style there was a related example:

On the other hand, Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD will avoid confusion

This is the same as one of the centuries mentioned so I think my point still stands. It does not matter to me if it is AD or CE, both are equally viable in my book. Brinkpw (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]