Talk:Anglicism

message: Part of the "anglicisms in french" part of the article is directly lifted from some essay on the internet.
: Can you point the url where it was taken?  drini ☎ 02:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: While it maybe interesting to see Anglicism in different languages, this article would become pragmatic with nothing more than little paragraphs showcasing different languages and their treatment to some universal English words over and over again. I would prefer this article to categorise the types of anglicism instead. See the [] version for this article for ideas. Each categories maybe illustrated by examples found in various languages of course.--Kvasir 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Dunglish is not the same as Anglicisms. I suggest to remove the link to Dunglish and start a paragraph about Anglicisms in Dutch.83.117.225.78 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunglish 

message: Isn't it much more likely that kil (keel), maszt (mast) are loanwords from Germany? It is true that the origin is probably English, however the word has been found in Germanic languages at about 10 AC. If you call that an "Anglicism" you could go as far as to say: There are no Anglicisms, because almost every word in English is either Germanic, Latin or French which would make e.g. 25% of them "Latinicisms".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.62.35 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish 

message: Since my mother tongue is Italian but I live in the German part of Switzerland, I think that anglicisms are much more used in German than in Italian, at least in the written language. Just have a look at any Swiss German free newspaper (20Minuten, Blick am Abend) ! I wouldn't write that "Italy is the country in Europe where anglicism are most used, without alterations (without source)". One of the countries. But not THE. 
M89arco (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian

message: I'm writing a thesis on Anglicisms in the German language and have been capitalizing the term. In this Wikipedia article, it seems the capitalization, or lack thereof, is haphazard. I don't care if it's upper or lower case, I just think it should be consistent.  Which brings me to my question: should the term be capitalized?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:8880:B580:8D71:2888:E4A9:9776 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Use both capitalised and uncapitalised at the start of the paper separated with an "or", then pick whichever you prefer and use that throughout. English (unlike German, and unlike many other languages) has very few hardfast rules, and this particular class of words -- nouns that are not proper nouns but are derived from proper nouns -- seems to be completely variable either way. An exception would be a word that has a different meaning when capitalised vs uncapitalised. The only word I know of that is like that is Marxism vs marxism, but there may be others.
Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalized or not? 

message: The article is almost entirely based on original research and unsourced assertions.  This is somewhat 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: , and that:   
It should be noted that adding an inline citation consisting of two definitions, one from an English dictionary, and one from a foreign dictionary of the same, or similar-appearing word, may verify the meanings of each, but that does not verify the foreign word's status as an 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 an anglicism for this article, you need a single source that says it's an anglicism; often, a foreign etymological dictionary or article may be the source for that. (A good example of that is ref 'JP' in the Polish section.)  Failing that, the example can be challenged, and removed if no source is forthcoming.  Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Adolf hitler was a Christian’s who spread the gospel. He loved Jews so much and decided to put his life for them 2600:1700:4EE0:87A0:502:3FD9:B5E6:A699 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adolf hitler