Talk:Cant (language)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cant (language) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brian Cox95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Should this be merged with Cryptolect, or vice versa? --Jim Henry | Talk 15:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done. ntennis 01:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is much work to do on this subject. See Argot Some of the variants are written up in separate articles, such as izzle Proposing a call for assistance from all concerned.Mydogtrouble (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan

I'm removing the claim that Etruscan has been hypothesized to be a cryptolect of Latin until someone can provide a reputable, published source for it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search revealed this link. Surely the fact that Etruscan has been considered a cryptolect (rightly or wrongly) is reason enough for its inclusion on this page? ntennis 03:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the view is widespread enough to be notable. One person holding a theory (rejected for publication, apparently, as the letter from Edgar Polomé included on that website indicates) does not render it notable enough for inclusion. I did say a reputable, published source for it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Etruscan as Cryptolect theory was not submitted to Edgar polomé for publication and his positive responses outweigh his reservations(read the letter again). The author of the theory

Leet

I've removed leet from the list, and I don't want it here until it is shown (with reliable sources) that it is indeed used primarily "to bypass automatic text parsers". EldKatt (Talk) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the requirements for leet to have reliable sources or a showing that it is used "to bypass automatic text parsers" when there are no proper citations for other entries in this article to reliable sources? This may be besides the point, in my experience leet was primarily formed on BBS systems long before text parsing was used to censor content. Later developments in leet did emerge from the need to bypass filters, primarily via AOL chat rooms, but that was after the leet cant was well formed. At present it's a little hard to call it a Cant as the use of leet is so widespread it hardly classifies as a secret language. DanRP (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2008-08-31, Leet is up again; I am going to remove it. --Politizer (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word

Could someone more learned than me explain th origin of the word cant itself. I have a few theories myself-

From the Irish caint meaning to talk
From chant
Or from cant meaning an oblique angle (had to look at my dictionary for that one)

I would say the Irish origin is most likely as shelta supposedly has a similar origin but I'm biased! Afn 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com[1] indicates that it is indeed related to (though not derived from) chant. EldKatt (Talk) 16:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Irish origin is unlikely as there is no Irish connection with the earliest use of the word in England. Although chant is possible I would tend to favour "oblique angle" i.e., "bent" as being involved, perhaps as well. Cant seems to come from "canting" meaning dishonest or outside society, for which "bent" was/is also used. GBH 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the common noun cant in the sense of "jargon" is certainly ultimately from Latin cantāre "sing", I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the Irish word caint had something to do with Shelta being called "the Cant". I doubt oblique angles have anything to do with it. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be useful to coniser an ethhmological link of the word cant to a nanlicisationof the gaelic word for 'talk' : caint comment moved from page

The Concise Oxford Dictionary has it as cantāre as well. Also, the dic states that it was used 'contemptuously' as early as the 12th century to singing in church services. As for the Irish or Gallic connection: I think it unlikely that in the 16 th century (when it was used to refer to slang) that a gentleman in polite company would use a word with a vulgar (common) root when a word derived from Latin was already in use with a close essence of of little worth, thus reflecting that he was a man of education and capable of discerning judgments. The vocabulary of the low orders would have been unfamiliar to them--Aspro 11:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current page stated that the Irish origin is invalid without stating a real origin. That should be found in secondary sources. (It is not for a discussion page to throw out Irish origins simply because we have only late citations.) In the meantime I will edit the page to list all potential roots, without bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmldalton (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I have tagged with {{fact}} each of the possible origins listed; we are lacking sources not just for or against the Irish origin, but sources for and against all of the origins suggested in the article. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobzer (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I would say it came from "caint", in primary school I remember we just called it "an caint" when we were learning about it, I could still be wrong though.[reply]

Cockney rhyming slang

Would you consider Cockney rhyming slang to be a Cant language? If so, I'll add the 'Cant language' category to that article.--Aspro 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cant is normally associated with criminal or "anti-social" (not normalised) behaviour. Cockneys are not distinctly associated with criminality. Also Cockney rhyming slang is not a cryptolect as it is often easily interprested by the overhearer. GBH 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect: I don't think you have read the article properly. Now that I have, it is easily a cant, and looking it up else where (like Wiktionary: Cockney rhyming slang) it is also classed as a cant there too. So I 'll be adding it soon.--Aspro 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carny

Do we think Carny is a cant? It seems to be a US English fairground speak - which is also used in professional wrestling (!) Secretlondon 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

argot or [cryptolect]]?

It seems to that Cant may be both, and that the articles overlap significantly. Should they be combined ?GBH (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat mystified by this article. In the Dorsai series by the Canadian outhor Gordon M. Dickson, cant is the distinct speech pattern of this Quaker like culture of "Friendlies". Could be father from any connotation offered in the article. I just don't understand that. Would be cool if somebody could explain the discrepancy. -- 88.114.251.192 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a "characteristic or secret language used only by members of a group" then, wouldn't it?

You can't rely on science fiction authors as authorities on linguistic terms though. pablo_hablo. 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you may mention that Louchebem is the cant of the french Butchers: in Louchebem, "louchebem" means "boucher"

(butcher in french) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.162.141 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentric Examples List

Looking at the present list of examples, it is, (as is so much of academic discourse), noticeably eurocentric, i.e. few examples from outside Europe. This creates what is probably a distorted impression: one might think it is primarily a European phenomenon, which I am sure it isn't. Anyone got any more non-European examples? Northtowner (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess it's a question of a) participation on the English Wikipedia and b) research. Even European cants are poorly researched, just imagine what the situation must be like elsewhere. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cryptolect

I would suggest merging the following articles:

They all appear to refer to the same thing: secret, coded languages. The even share some of the same examples. Cryptolect (currently a redirect) is the most general and technical term, so I think it would probably be the best choice for the title of the final article, post-merger. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They might appear to say the same thing but they don't. The origins differ and there's still a difference in definition. Read a dictionary ffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.132.30 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support both extant merge proposals (that for Argot and Anti-language). The terms are sufficiently similar in meaning that the concepts are best described in one place; the distincy etymologies of nuances of meaning can also be discussed here too. Note that, as described at WP:NOTADICTIONARY, Wikipedia has pages for concepts, not separate pages for each word used to describe that concept. Klbrain (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge proposals, I think (and certainly Argot/Cant). Currently, there is considerable overlap, and I think a merger would be less confusing for users. 86.186.120.235 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done for Argot. Klbrain (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done for Anti-language. Klbrain (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]