Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syntaxis

Syntaxis

Syntaxis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Syntaxis in the sense of the article appears to be a neologism. The word does not appear in the purported sense in dictionaries or reliable secondary sources. The only source for the article is a blog text, which only refers back to the article itself to support the usage of the word "syntaxis" in the context. This has been noted on the article talk page since June 2023, with no supporting comments added since. Stca74 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This word means something different , in a geological context. it appears to mean "syntax" in other languages... No one uses the word in the context described in the Wiki article we're looking at. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Obviously an underreferenced stub, but not a neologism. I heard the word used this way (in contrast to parataxis) as an undergrad over 50 years ago. I'm at a disadvantage responding further at the moment: temporarily lacking a computer, writing this on a phone. Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Ha! Just found it, memory served well. Erich Auerbach's Mimesis, translated by Willard R. Trask. 50th anniversary Princeton University Press reissue 2003, ISBN 9780691160321. Page 70-71, he contrasts parataxis (using the adjective "parataxic" and the plural noun "parataxes", referring to instances of parataxis), "hypotactically"/"hypotaxis", and "parataxis". Hard to think of a more influential 20th-century work of literary criticism than Mimesis, I would think that usage alone would qualify this as in scope. Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• I reread the passage and Stca74 is correct. My apologies. Probably my professor used that term in discussing the passage and it stuck in my head, but I see it is not in Auerbach. Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Rhetorics has a lot of concepts that oddly deviate from their use in linguistics. If this one is actually in use, it's not widespread enough that we can find proper examples of it. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 10:46, 6 November 2025 (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.