Talk:Pseudo-anglicism

Original research
The article is almost entirely based on original research and unsourced assertions. This is understandable, because everybody feels like an expert in their native language (and sometimes, in others as well). However, Wikipedia's core principle of verifiability is very clear on this point: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable, and that: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

It should be noted that adding an inline citation consisting entirely of a dictionary definition or definitions of either the foreign or the English word, or both, may verify the meanings of each, but that does not verify their status as a pseudo-anglicism; that would be WP:SYNTH and thus still subject to removal as unverified. Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but for a word to be verifiable as a pseudo-anglicism for this article, you need a single source that says it's a pseudo-anglicism, either outright, or one that points out the difference in meaning in the two languages in a way that its status as a pseudo-anglicism in the foreign language (and not a false friend) can be readily and reliably concluded without being objected to as WP:SYNTH.

Please do not add additional items to the list, without simultaneously adding a reliable source pointing out that the item is a pseudo-anglicism. Please help find sources for items currently on the list, that lack a citation. Items currently on the list without a reference may be challenged or removed. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's considerably worse than I thought. After creation of the article in 2003 with a correct definition of pseudo-anglicism, within a few months the first sentence was changed to an incorrect definition, which has survived, incorrect, through multiple changes to the present; thus over fourteen years with a completely wrong definition. This is embarrassing, to say the least. For one thing, it has led numerous editors to add terms in good faith to the article that are absolutely not pseudo-anglicisms, through no fault of their own, except having trusted that the (unsourced) definition was correct; but it wasn't.  The collateral damage is every one who looked at the article over that entire period, and thought that they were learning something. Arrrghhh...
 * I've installed a corrected lead with a sourced definition and a few examples (still needs beefing up) and added a section on mechanisms of pseudo-anglicism production. The mechanisms section could be beefed up with a few, illustrative examples of each mechanism, from different languages, and more sources about mechanisms.
 * The bulk of the article is the #Examples section; the majority of these examples will need to be removed as just plain wrong; they are not pseudo-anglicisms at all. The majority of the incorrect ones are False friends, introduced by well-meaning editors because of the incorrect definition in the lead all that time. Those entires that remain will require citations. Mathglot (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blanked twelve sections of language examples that were entirely unsourced; most were tagged unsourced for six months or more but in reality have been unsourced for much longer. Removed unsourced examples from other sections. These are preserved in the history of course, so could be brought back with citations. Mathglot (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original definition was incorrect in many ways according to the reliable sources in the article. It read:
 * Pseudo-anglicisms are artificially-created constructions
 * What is "artificially-created" supposed to mean?
 * in German
 * German has no special place in this definition
 * of words with elements borrowed from English but the morphemes of which do not actually exist in English.
 * Incorrect. It isn't clear what is meant by "elements" here, but anyway the morphemes generally do exist in English, e.g., baby-foot is composed of two genuine English morphemes.
 * A slightly later version added:
 * They are, what is normally called, false friends or false cognates.
 * Also incorrect. False friends are generally cognates (and sometimes borrowings) which have evolved to have different meanings, like English parent vs. Italian/Portuguese parent(e).


 * A more recent definition:
 * A pseudo-anglicism is a word in another language that is formed from English elements and may appear to be English, but that does not exist as an English word.
 * is more correct, but is incomplete. In fact, written this way, it excludes some of the best-known pseudo-anglicisms, like French brushing, building, Italian jolly, German handy, etc., which are well-documented in RS to be pseudo-anglicisms. The key point is that the English word does not have the same meaning or semantics, as clearly stated in the sources in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing items that don't belong
As stated in the section above, numerous entries crept into the list which are not pseudo-anglicisms, due to the error in the definition which confused pseudo-anglicisms with False friends. French words like box, brushing, building, or caddie exist in English (under whatever definition) and therefore are not pseudo-anglicisms, and should be removed. Perfectly good French words like babyfoot, rallye-paper, relooker, or tennisman look like they are English, but they are not: these are examples of pseudo-anglicisms, and should remain.

I've started to remove items that clearly do not belong on the list. Any help would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we shall exclude false friends (which might be ok in order to reduce the article size) this should be defined in lede where "Pseudo-anglicism" is defined, and take into account the meaning of "Pseudo-anglicism" outside Wikipedia. Now Mathglot has remade the article based on the above single talk entry without defining the term in the article.--BIL (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When you wrote on Feb. 18, the first sentence of the article defined the term as follows:"A pseudo-anglicism is a word in another language that is formed from English elements and may appear to be English, but that does not exist as an English word." and it remains so today. Are you saying you want to see the first-sentence definition added to the "Definition and terminology" section which currently only discusses other alternatives? I think that's a reasonable request.  Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed non-English "projector", in Hebrew.
 * Projector, pronounced pʁojektoʁ, is not Pseudo-English. It is composed of pʁojekt, which is not an English borrowing, rather Polish/German in the same meaning. -er/-or is a widely used suffix borrowed from German/Yiddish, used in the same manner in English & the French -eur. A similar Hebrew word, projector, pronounced pʁoʒektoʁ, means "spotlight" or (an old fashioned) "video projector", thus paving the way for pʁojektoʁ, head of a specific project, composed of non-English components, rather broadly European. 2A02:6680:110C:1356:6B0C:4D0F:BE93:5B9D (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Above you say that pseudo-anglicisms are words that do not exist at all in English. That's fine, but then how do you define all the words that have been removed from the article because of this definition? They are not at all false friends: they are valid English words used with a different meaning in another language. Typical examples are "handy" (for cell phone) in German and "flipper" (for "pinball") in Italian. --Guido71 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My first reaction would be that words that are removed because they are not pseudo-anglicisms don’t have to be defined as anything; it’s not likely that they all fall into one bucket anyway. Why would we even want to spend time here on the Talk page about talking about other words which should be discussed on the Talk page of the article they belong to, if any?
 * Regarding your two examples: different sources define pseudo-anglicisms differently, but the majority view seems to exclude Handy and pinball because those are both perfectly good words in English, whereas rallye-paper and Baby foot are not, even though they look like they are English. Some sources disagree on the definition, though, and I think it would be fine to add a short new section talking about the minority definition, which would include as examples words that are actually false friends, and give Handy and flipper as examples of words that would be included by those supporting the other definition but excluded by those supporting the majority view. Mathglot (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder where this "majority vs minority" view about pseudo-anglicism definition comes from. Can you please give some references? By wandering the web it seems to me that the majority of sites define "Handy" as a pseudo-anglicism in German (as an example), and only Wikipedia disagrees :) And regarding your example, "baby foot" in English could be the foot of a baby (I guess, I'm not English), so why do you consider it a pseudo-anglicism? Isn't it valid English even if in a completely different meaning? Actually I think that if we use the current Wikipedia definition (pseudo-anglicism = word not current in English), the examples in this page become quite useless, as the most important/used words fall in the other, "minority" category (i.e. English words with a different meaning in other languages). --Gs71 (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since both majority and minority views can be represented, if you think Handy meets that bar then just go ahead and add it back. I’m not sure if you’re joking about baby foot, but if you’re not, we don’t have to address your question in the article, because since we have reliable sources that state that it is a pseudo-anglicism, that’s sufficient. Anyone who wanted to know what the correct term was for “when baby foot just means the foot of a baby” can ask at the Reference desk, but it isn’t really germane to the pseudo-anglicism article. Mathglot (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All of the sources that I have reviewed (including those cited in the lead) include words like box (in the sense boxing), brushing, building, or caddie as pseudo-anglicisms precisely because they have different meanings. Which sources do not include them? --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an indiscriminate list
Even after all the items that do not meet the definition are removed, some languages may still have too many examples. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not an indiscriminate collection of information:"To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." For each language, a few illustrative examples could be kept, with preference for ones that are significant for some reason, such as the iconic dressman in German which has been addressed numerous times in the literature. There is no reason to have a long list for each language, and the temptation to create an exhaustive list should be resisted. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Translations needed
Can we have translations for every word in the list please? I assume that "rallye-paper" is a paper chase and "shake-hand" is a handshake, but I shouldn't have to guess. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, but it also depends on what's available in the sources. In most cases, I imagine they provide this, so it's a good idea. Mathglot (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Doric The example of "rallye-paper" goes back to the 19th century, and is a version of "hare and hounds" played with paper scraps. Might make sense for the body of the article, to show how long ago such faux amis were recognized, but makes no sense in the lead. I'll move it and add a reference. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple languages
Not sure how to handle the Multiple languages section, which is a list of examples, except more than one language per English word. Each language listed is really a separate pseudo-anglicism which needs its own reference, but having them listed with multiple languages like that, seems to discourage that. My current thinking, is that for those examples where a single source can be found that lists several languages for one English word or expression, we can keep it in the list, but for those examples that would require separate citations, one for each language, those should just be shipped out to the languages in question.

Does Recordman really mean "a sports record-holder in French, Greek, Italian, Romanian, Russian, and Turkish"? Who knows; but each of those languages needs a reference, unless one source mentions all of them. If not, Recordman should be shipped out to whatever language section (or sections) does have a citation for it. Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Moved a couple of sourced entries to the Italian section. The remaining entries were unsourced since they were added, some time before May 2018. They, and the section header, have been removed. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Autostop
How come autostop appears as a pseudoanglicism? Look at its use in English!

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=autostop%2CHitchhiking&year_start=1920&year_end=1940&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cautostop%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CHitchhiking%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cautostop%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CHitchhiking%3B%2Cc0

--87.125.72.111 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, look. Click some of those yearly links below. Extend the graph to more recent than 80 years ago. I think you answered your own question. Mathglot (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What's more, if you look at the examples of autostop in English before 1940, they're about devices that stop automatically, not hitchhiking. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Spanish
Both Spanish examples use Spanish words with an -ing suffix. The main word "puente" or "rebajas" are clearly not English. I'll be bold and delete the section, if anyone disagrees, come back here and discuss this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But what is your rationale? I don't necessarily support or oppose the removal strongly, but clearly the pseudo-anglicism is the application of the English suffix -ing to non-English words, not the resultant words themselves. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare with "Salaryman" (Japanese) or "relooker" (Fr) (the word only has a French ending for grammatical purposes) or "Wellness" (German). "Puente" and "Rebajas" are clearly not English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , There are various definitions for pseudo-anglicism, so it's sometimes hard to make these calls. I tend to be conservative, in the sense of following Duckworth (who everybody else follows, or strays from but owes a debt to), so in my book it has to be "made up of English elements". Does that mean "every" element must be English? I'm not sure, but examples given in sources about pseudo-anglicism don't usually look like the "puenting" example. The closest to puenting would appear to be Onysko's hybrid anglicism example Weitsprung-Coach, but even that has a full English word embedded, not merely a suffix. Also, I view any example where a source actually claims that the term is a pseudo-anglicism as the gold standard for inclusion here, although those are harder to find. So following my "conservative" druthers, I do agree with Martin, although I'm open to persuasion if there's another angle on this. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)  updated by Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This paper, in section 6, calls the puenting a "faux or fod cod anglicism", and gives additional examples: tumbing, mamading, the Darwin-award technique of balconing, and, my favorite: edredoning: "the practice of having sexual relations on a TV reality show under a duvet" (which seems like a perfect candidate to add to the article Untranslatability, although I think that whole article should be deleted; but that's another story). Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC) updated to correct typo; by Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the paper. This article is about Pseudo-anglicism which specifically excludes all except his section 5.  The use of the English gerund (I must admit, I'd analysed it as a present participle) on a Spanish word is a grammatical contrivance and is not the misuse of an English word; indeed it's closer to a loan word. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Korean
I removed all three examples, but left the section title, and added an empty section tag. Hopefully someone will add something here. Some possibilities: o-bite, luxtige, skinship (스킨십), all-kill (올킬), remocon (리모컨), melo (멜로), maybe handphone (unless it's a calque from Chinese 手機). Someone familiar with K-pop or youth slang could probably come up with more. Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

More items to remove
The article says that a pseudo-anglicism "does not exist as an English word". Therefore, the words handy, shooting and wellness (German), butterfly and smoking (Danish), basket and pocket (Swedish), recorder (Serbo-Croatian) should be removed and moved to the False friend page. Mateussf (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That definition is incorrect. The sources cited in this article clearly indicate that words like "basket" (meaning basketball), "self" (meaning self-service store), etc. are pseudo anglicisms. As Ayres-Bennet says:
 * "pseudo-anglicisms (words which look English but which do not correspond to an English usage, e.g. lifting, bronzing, tennisman" (p. 325)
 * "...the form created in English does not exist in English either in the same form or with the same meaning" [my emphasis] (p. 335)
 * She goes on to give examples:
 * "There are a number of different types of pseudo-anglicism. These may for example be the result of ellipsis as in ''le trench (coat), le basket (ball), le (news) flash, le self(-service)"
 * Note that all of trench, basket, flash, self do exist as English words, but not with the French meaning. --Macrakis (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

International
Many of these pseudo-English terms are found in multiple languages, like smoking for smoking-jacket, auto-stop for hitchhiking, basket for basketball, etc. They should probably be grouped. I suspect that most of them were coined in French then borrowed by other languages, but we can't really assume that -- we need to find some sources. --Macrakis (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pseudo-anglicism vs. false friend vs. borrowing
Many of the edit comments and the discussion here on the Talk page seem to assume that there is a sharp distinction between pseudo-anglicism, false friend, and borrowing. In fact, these terms can overlap. Consider, for example, the Italian term jolly, meaning the Joker in a pack of cards. This was apparently borrowed from an American English expression "jolly joker" (the usage is documented in the 1896 Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present s.v. but was apparently rare enough or slangy enough that it isn't found in the OED) and shortened to "jolly" in Italian. So the term was borrowed into Italian. However, "jolly joker" is no longer current in English, so that at least makes it a false friend, in the sense that a translator would be mistaken to translate Italian Jolly as English Jolly. Is it also a pseudo-anglicism, i.e., do Italian speakers think it is an English word with the meaning "joker"? Howard Moss, a lecturer in Italian at Swansea University, thinks so, as does Cristiano Furiassi (whom we cite several times) in his article "How jolly is the joker? Problemi di traducibilità dei falsi anglicismi". And "jolly" apparently was never used in English without "joker", and so falls into the pattern of pseudo-anglicism formation that Ayres-Bennett calls "ellipsis". --Macrakis (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)