Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbarism (grammar)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Ifnord 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbarism (grammar)
I admit to being prejudiced against it, because it seems to me to embody an outdated and judgmentalism, but that's not why I think it should be removed: the article is no more than a definition. ColinFine 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a technical term or a term of art, and it is not even well-defined. It may belong in Wiktionary, but it doesn't belong here.
 * Transwiki to wiktionary as dicdef - Yomangani 21:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, perhaps the article should be expanded to include the controversy over the political correctness of using a word that implies savageness to describe poor grammar.
 * Actually, barbarism must have some standing in the linguistic community, as it appears and is defined in the article "Bad Grammar in Context" from Brown http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/mdh/bad-grammar.pdf
 * Weak keep It is used and the article may have some hope of expansion. I've had it used about some of my more inventive French devoirs.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the article useful and would like to keep it, although if it could be expanded to show a source for the term; that might address some of the concerns.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, "The English word barbarism originally referred to incorrect use of language, but it is now used more generally to refer to ignorance or crudity in matters of taste, including verbal expression". Saugart 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to wikitionary as dicdef; not as nonsense or being outdated, as the nominator states, but merely a dicdef. (And the political correctness assertion is out of line - poor grammar is used to imply savageness, not the other way around.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a linguistic term analagous to a solecism, which no one seems to be wanting to delete.  Even if it's obsolescent, it's because linguistics has become descriptive and thus contemporary linguists do not presume to declare a usage a barbarism, not because it no longer exists as a concept or because some other term has replaced it.  Phrenology isn't practiced by doctors or psychologists anymore, but that's because it's been abandoned by professional communities, not because it doesn't exist as a concept or as a historical phenomenon or because it's been subsumed into some broader current practice.  Moreover, the illustration with an Anglicism in French is useful, although this would be too much for a mere dictionary entry.--Atemperman 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's mainly a dicdef for an obsolete term, but it gets used in discussing grammar.  Grammarians tend to slice things differently from each other.  WP can't delete every gramatical term that the latest grammarians have deprecated. Barticus88 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.