[Semantics] Merriam-Webster clarification

[David]

It's clear in SEMoS § 8.2.9.4 that words of non-English origin now in the "basic" Merriam-Webster don't get italics, and `bon mot` is given as an example.

What about cases where the words are still given as from French, or whatever? Examples:

(1) nom de guerre is simply a "noun", so clearly no italics/semantics as per SEMoS—

(2) But! what about carte d'identité? It is identified as a "French noun phrase"—

So does a case like this attract italics/semantics in spite of SEMoS? I am thinking that would be correct (#1 is "bare", but #2 gets `i+xml...` wrapper), but would appreciate confirmation or clarification.

Thanks! David / Fife, UK

[Vince]

That is where we ended up in the last big discussion on the matter—explicitly stated non-English phrases get tagged. The whole “in the dictionary” thing is essentially saying “this is now English,” but if the dictionary says it’s explicitly not English, then we go along with it.

On Jul 15, 2025, at 11:15 AM, David <djre...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's clear in SEMoS § 8.2.9.4 that words of non-English origin now in the "basic" Merriam-Webster don't get italics, and `bon mot` is given as an example.

What about cases where the words are still given as from French, or whatever? Examples:

(1) nom de guerre is simply a "noun", so clearly no italics/semantics as per SEMoS—

<Screenshot from 2025-07-15 17-08-30.png>

(2) But! what about carte d'identité? It is identified as a "French noun phrase"—

[David Reimer]

Super, and it makes sense. Thanks for confirmation! (I will now endeavour to remember this.....)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 at 17:36, Vince wrote:

That is where we ended up in the last big discussion on the matter—explicitly stated non-English phrases get tagged. The whole “in the dictionary” thing is essentially saying “this is now English,” but if the dictionary says it’s explicitly not English, then we go along with it.

[David]

One more thought on this: is there some simple, elegant way this could be signalled in SEMoS? At present the wording at 8.2.9.4 is:

> Words and phrases that are originally non-English in origin, but that can now be found in Merriam-Webster’s basic online search results, are not italicized.

The paragraph goes on to unpack what is meant by "basic online search results". But would this slight expansion (it's difficult to make it pithy!) add the necessary clarity and refinement?

> ... now be found in Merriam-Webster’s basic online search results +without a language identifier+, are not italicized.

That may seem opaque in itself, but could be sufficient signal for producers pondering specific cases.

[Alex Cabal]

I have a thread on this topic from 2022 sitting in my inbox which I've
punted on for years now. Maybe someday I'll revisit it...

On 7/16/25 3:15 AM, David wrote:
> One more thought on this: is there some simple, elegant way this could

> be signalled in SEMoS? At present the wording at 8.2.9.4 <https://
> standardebooks.org/manual/1.8.3/single-page#8.2.9.4> is:

>
> > Words and phrases that are originally non-English in origin, but that

> can now be found in Merriam-Webster’s <https://www.merriam-webster.com/>

> basic online search results, are not italicized.
>
> The paragraph goes on to unpack what is meant by "basic online search
> results". But would this slight expansion (it's difficult to make it
> pithy!) add the necessary clarity and refinement?
>

> > ... now be found in Merriam-Webster’s <https://www.merriam-
> webster.com/> basic online search results *+without a language
> identifier+*, are not italicized.

>
> That may seem opaque in itself, but could be sufficient signal for
> producers pondering specific cases.
>
> On Tuesday, 15 July 2025 at 17:44:28 UTC+1 David wrote:
>
> Super, and it makes sense. Thanks for confirmation! (I will now
> endeavour to remember this.....)
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 at 17:36, Vince wrote:
>
> That is where we ended up in the last big discussion on the
> matter—explicitly stated non-English phrases get tagged. The
> whole “in the dictionary” thing is essentially saying “this is
> now English,” but if the dictionary says it’s explicitly not
> English, then we go along with it.
>
>> On Jul 15, 2025, at 11:15 AM, David wrote:
>>

>> It's clear in SEMoS § 8.2.9.4 <https://standardebooks.org/
>> manual/1.8.3/single-page#8.2.9.4> that words of non-English

>> origin now in the "basic" Merriam-Webster don't get italics,
>> and `bon mot` is given as an example.
>>
>> What about cases where the words are still given as from
>> French, or whatever? Examples:
>>

>> (1) nom de guerre <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
>> nom%20de%20guerre> is simply a "noun", so clearly no italics/

>> semantics as per SEMoS—
>>
>> <Screenshot from 2025-07-15 17-08-30.png>
>>

>> (2) But! what about carte d'identi <https://www.merriam-
>> webster.com/dictionary/carte%20d'identit%C3%A9>té <https://
>> www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carte%20d'identit%C3%A9>?

>> It is identified as a "French noun phrase"—
>>
>> <Screenshot from 2025-07-15 17-08-44.png>
>>
>> So does a case like this attract italics/semantics in spite of
>> SEMoS? I am thinking that would be correct (#1 is "bare", but
>> #2 gets `i+xml...` wrapper), but would appreciate confirmation
>> or clarification.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/506e69e6-1146-4615-aff1-d103dbb74225n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/506e69e6-1146-4615-
> aff1-d103dbb74225n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.