Talk:Schmuck (pejorative)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Note, that in Joys of Yiddish, C 1968, he gives the first definition as (obscene) Penis, not the foreskin of a penis.

I actually had always thought this was the correct obscene/anatomical connotation, but other sources indicate that it refers only to the foreskin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRKaramelkorn (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 November 2007

What are these "other sources", please? Schmuck is used as perjorative, like "prick", never foreskin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.153.174 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 November 2007

"Šmok" is definitely not a Slovene word. This reference is highly probably bogus and should be removed. 86.61.49.181 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Šmok is not a Slovene word. I checked the dictionary too, but I couldn`t find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisecclankov (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC) SMOK is a Polish word for dragon. Thomas Debowski16.July2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.21.167 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"In German language the word refers to jewelry, a trinket or a brooch, but its etymology is unrelated to the Yiddish word. Coincidentally, the Yiddish word is borrowed into German too, however spoken and written 'Schmock'" Well Yiddish is derived from the German language so its no "coincidence" that the word is borrowed into German. It even indicates that 'Schmock' is the original form of the word.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.79.184.8 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess you meant to say pronounced "Schmock"... that whole paragraph about jewelry doesn't make sense. I agree. D. Schröder-Micheel (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Link to German Wikipedia

Can we really keep the following sentence?
"In the German Wikipedia the article "Schmock"—which is written in German and links to this article as the English version—defines this word as the German equivalent of "Schmuck."
Can Wikipedia quote itself? I suggest finding another source (dictionary) for Schmock and writing something like:
"The German equivalent of "schmuck" is "Schmock".
Manufaure 20:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with X-linking to the German equivalent for "schmuck" within Wikipedia. After all, that is what the German article at de.Wikipedia.org for Schmock is doing when it has on the left-hand side a link to "other languages" for this article and links to Schmuck. Conversely, the English article links to the German equivalent in the section for "Languages: Deutsch | Français". I am not in possession currently of a text book that proves the connection, but would be willing to do a search, if that is necessary. I suppose you do not trust a source at the German side of Wikipedia because you cannot understand it. I speak German, so I can verify what it says there. "Schmock" comes from "schmo," which happens to be a variant of the English word "schmuck." I don't see how they can be different, except for cultural variances. If you prefer, then we can make the following sentence: >>In German, the word "schmuck" is replaced by its original form "Schmock," which most likely was the word which Yiddish borrowed and converted into "schmuck."<< --Skol fir (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideally Wikipedia shouldn't use itself as a source per WP:CIRCULAR – a reference outside of Wikipedia would be much better. The interwiki links to foreign language Wikipedia articles are there as convenience links, not to verify content. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote the part about German, using Leo as a reference. I find it interesting to highlight Ger. Schmuck is unrelated, but I'm not convinced we should keep the part about the translation of Eng. schmuck in German: I think the link to the German 'Schmock' article is enough, and the "hack" meaning shown on Leo does not appear in other dictionaries (see http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=722771&idForum=6&lp=ende&lang=de, where neither Oxford-Duden nor Pons-Collins seem to have it) and makes it too heavy. In any case, "Schmock" does not seem very frequently used in modern German (I live there at the moment). Manufaure 23:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manufaure (talk • contribs)

Using Leo Rosten, a humourist(!) as a reference?? Get serious, man! Different from you, I do not only live in Germany, but I'm also a native german speaker. With a little more than a superficial knowledge of german you'd see how absurd Leo's claim is. "Schmuck" is a standard grammar nominalisation of the verb "schmücken" (to decorate), a word so typically german that it must have ben in the german language for centuries. Will make that clear in the article, and delete the ridiculous claim (it says "the pejorative use of the German 'schmuck' derives from ..." - The point is, german "Schmuck" is not pejorative in the first place). WikiPidi (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing the picture

The picture shows a german shop with a sign "Schmuck" above. As I saw this picture, I thought it was put in the wrong article or perhaps the wrong wiki. "Schmuck" is the german term for adornment, decoration or jewelry. There is no pejorative connotation to the german word "Schmuck" whatsoever. And there is no other use of "schmuck" in the german language. Thats why I will remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galameli (talk • contribs) 03:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia always make a habit of stealing this much from the Online Etymology Dictionary? Also, the underlying meaning of "penis" is kind of buried in there as though it is some forgotten, etymological meaning. In fact, that is what makes "schmuck" a vulgarity. It just doesn't seem entirely clear (to me anyway) on the first reading.

Poular culture section

I deleted it because it lists some occasional usages of the word which have no significant impact for plot and hence fail WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. These entries might have had some generic notability if they were cited in scholarly or critical sources, which they are not. In other words, I am not intrinsically against trivia and popcult and will not object agains adding such items once they are referenced from independent secondary sources (i.e., if they are not a random OR of a wikipedian). - Altenmann >t 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the above assessment. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to display a load of usage of the word unless it is a notable, well sourced use. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ipa?

81.11.222.220 (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewelry as collateral for loans

May I suggest that people who lent money to clients who used jewelry as collateral for loans caused the lenders to begin using the German word for jewelry, schmuck, as a pejorative term implying stupidity for those borrowers who appeared to be unconcerned or uninformed of the true value of their collateral. Ssumm6 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest that, but that doesn't make it true or supported by reliable sources. AJD (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)