Talk:gnome
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
RFV-sense: the Heathen sense. Needs to be cited as distinct from the generic sense, as above (#goblin). - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are dozens of these silly Heathenry senses, none of which seems distinct from existing senses. They were all added by the same user a couple of years ago. I think we should ditch them all personally. Ƿidsiþ 09:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've been removing the obviously redundant ones, like the separate "pagan" and "neo-pagan" senses of Thor. Side note: judging by Citations:Ancestor Night, some of the things that look like attestations are actually self-published and possibly not durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
RFV-sense: "A chariot used by the gods and goddesses or a symbolic cart used in rituals and shrines in Heathenry." - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
RFV-sense: "An oath or toast made during a ritual." Boasting is significant in Heathenry, so a Heathen sense may be attestable, but I think the current definition is wrong (I would say "during a feast"). - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will make an effort soon to see if this is citeable (with the modified definition I propose), as it is both less dubious and less redundant than the others. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Verb?
[edit]Is there a verb for this term such as is the case with google. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Statue sense. One of the quotes says "as of this writing, four gnomes and one moss-covered rabbit hang out in the shrubbery by the front door..." We could be missing a statue sense of rabbit, but instead I would say that, like rabbit can mean a statue of a rabbit, a gnome can mean a statue of a gnome, even if that's way more common for gnomes than rabbits.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- What, remove this and keep garden gnome? DonnanZ (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. In the vast majority of instances where people say gnome they’re referring to the garden statues. Also keep garden gnome as it’s something of a set phrase and doesn’t literally refer to creatures living in your garden (though I suppose it could do). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at Google Books, I'd say there's a slight majority of fantasy creature, though it's somewhat complicated by the number of books that have living garden gnomes. "Vast majority" is clearly wrong, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems extremely likely to me that most instances of gnome (even without a qualifier like ‘garden’ or ‘statue’) that occur in actual speech refer to garden gnomes rather than mythical creatures despite how the word is used in the literature, though that is admittedly hard to prove to you. Perhaps ‘vast majority’ was overstated but I still say we should keep the entry. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- The wider question is whether it is useful to have, in many noun entries, the sense “an artistic depiction of foo”. While it seems that when anything imaginary or mythological (e.g., an angel, a cherub, a demon, a dragon, a fairy) is depicted in art it might be referred to unqualified, this can certainly be the case for tangible things too (e.g., “The walls of her bedroom were covered with butterflies and flowers”). — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems extremely likely to me that most instances of gnome (even without a qualifier like ‘garden’ or ‘statue’) that occur in actual speech refer to garden gnomes rather than mythical creatures despite how the word is used in the literature, though that is admittedly hard to prove to you. Perhaps ‘vast majority’ was overstated but I still say we should keep the entry. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at Google Books, I'd say there's a slight majority of fantasy creature, though it's somewhat complicated by the number of books that have living garden gnomes. "Vast majority" is clearly wrong, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. In the vast majority of instances where people say gnome they’re referring to the garden statues. Also keep garden gnome as it’s something of a set phrase and doesn’t literally refer to creatures living in your garden (though I suppose it could do). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. You can use the word gnome in nearly any non-fantasy context and people will assume you're talking about garden gnomes, which doesn't happen with terms like rabbit. Binarystep (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- But it does happen with words like dragon or fairy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. If you mentioned a dragon or a fairy without context, people wouldn't assume you're specifically referring to a garden statue. At best, they'd just assume you're referring to a fictional depiction in general. Binarystep (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- But it does happen with words like dragon or fairy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: this seems like a contextual shortening of garden gnome. The 1968 quote says "painted concrete gnomes" and the 2011 quote says "a dozen small lawn gnomes" before using gnomes unqualified. I agree with Prosfilaes that this is akin to an author referring to statues of angels or rabbits as simply angels or rabbits (e.g., "There were angels on the pillars lining the nave of the church"). — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - even though you're right that it's a contextual shortening, it's in widespread use. Theknightwho (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep because of how common it is (the statues exist and the creatures don't!), and the almost universal context of being in gardens, i.e. they are "a thing" culturally. Compare pineapple, "a decorative carving of a pineapple fruit used as a symbol of hospitality". Equinox ◑ 23:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Prosfilaes. So if somebody looks at a painting of a forest and says "This is a pretty forest.", does that attest the sense "forest: a painting of forest (sense 1)"? Of course not, the place is meant, not the map. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The difference is that you can't use forest to mean "a painting of a forest" without context. On the other hand, gnome is generally understood to mean "garden gnome" unless specified otherwise. Binarystep (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- On one hand, I'm generally opposed to "a representation of X" as senses of "X", and led the push to delete the eagle: "a bird (included when photographed or drawn or painted, or sculpted from clay, ...)", "this same bird, but when drawn in heraldry" senses. On the other hand, there are a very few words where the physical real-world thing does seem almost as widely denoted by the bare word as the fictional thing it represents. What are some other examples? (I'm actually sceptical that the "a carving of a pineapple" sense at pineapple should be kept. Perhaps compare: Darumas are technically just representations of Daruma, the semi-legendary figure, but...in practice when people talk about Darumas, they often mean the dolls. ?) Maybe skull and crossbones is an example; it mostly refers to the artistic depiction even though you could, of course, construct an example from actual bones. Meh. On the fence. - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- RFD-kept: 4 keeps, 3 deletes. No 2/3-supermajority and nothing in the keep votes that would justify dismissing them (WT:VP). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)