Talk:are

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Talk:Are)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Russian[edit]

I'm pretty sure there is a Russian translation but that it is only used in certain rare grammatical situations.

Another point is that we should cover the archaic situation where English used thou and art for the 2nd person singular at which time are was not used in that case. — Hippietrail 23:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dutch[edit]

I have removed the equivalency factor from the Dutch because there is also a historical meaning before the metric system which is not exactly 100 sq meters. If this historical meaning does not apply then the definition must be worded more strongly to indicate that only the modern equivalent has ever been used. Davilla 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren[edit]

Aren mentioned here: http://www.bartleby.com/61/37/A0413700.html Wakuran 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Room re noun meaning "mercy, honor"[edit]

See Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/February#God's_are_be_hard_to_find. - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion: March–April 2019[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Are noun. No citations. Dictionary references: MED and Scots. Has this been used in English, ie, after 1470. If it'sonly Scots, we should say so. DCDuring (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word was introduced with the adoption of the metric system, originally as a French word (by law in 1799, after having been coined in 1792), and subsequently in English, according to some sources first used in 1819. See e.g. here.  --Lambiam 17:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the RFVed sense. Useful to add to the metric sense (etymology 3), though. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No entry (and hence no citations or pointers to collocations) in Century or the English Dialect Dictionary. No relevant hits for "(God's|Christ's) are is", "by (God's|Christ's) are", "(God's|Christ's) mercy and are", "(bid|beg) (for|) (God's|Christ's) are", "the are of (a|the)". I suspect it didn't survive into modern English. (The MED gives ore as the Middle English lemma spelling, btw, if the entry is to be moved.) - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are missing senses, such as the one Lambian refers to, and one derived from Latin ara. I hope they are attestable without too much work. DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The OED only has cites predating Modern English for this and labels it as obsolete. As far as I can tell it's not in the SND or the DOST either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's found in the Scots dictionary as are (“grace, mercy”) : For godis are, Lewe now & sper at me nomare. The English parallel from Middle English ore can be found in Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial English as hore (“mercy, grace, favour”). Are however probably needs to be moved to a Scots entry. Leasnam (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "For godis are" finds it in a book called Legends of the Saints: In the Scottish Dialect of the Fourteenth Century, suggesting it may not even be Scots, per se, but rather what we would (AFAIK) handle as (Scottish) Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 00:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. We already had the meaning under Scots. Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion: September–October 2022[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense "grace, mercy, honour, dignity". The OED and SND have no post-1500 attestations of this word; it's also absent from the English Dialect Dictionary; this makes survival unlikely. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 19:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is Middle English and (old) Scots. Leasnam (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion: July 2022–February 2023[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense: Etymology 4: "(UK, humorous, derogatory) Deliberate misspelling of our."

Deliberate? DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very common British meme on places like Reddit and Twitter to mock working class right-wing people, essentially calling them thick. “TAKE BACK ARE COUNTRY” is the quintessential example (in reference to Brexit supporters), but there are plenty of other uses, with “are” being the signal that that’s what’s being implied. Theknightwho (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: instead of having separate "misspelling of" and "deliberate misspelling of" lines, should we in general combine them like "misspelling of x, sometimes deliberate"? (Obviously creating or modifying any templates as necessary to effect the same categorization as at present.) It seems like most (all??) deliberate misspellings would also occur as accidental misspellings. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to have a single definition, with a usage note explaining how it's used to caricature certain people. After all, the implication is that the misspelling is not used intentionally or humorously by the people whose speech is being mimicked. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve definitely encountered people who misspell our as are unintentionally. Such people aren’t mocking themselves of course, as it’s not usually in people’s nature or interests to do so. It would seem more sensible to phrase it as misspelling, sometimes deliberate than something like misspelling, sometimes deliberately used to caricature people who are perceived as being unable to spell due to a lack of intelligence as that seems unnecessarily long-winded. I’ve now tagged both existing senses as both U.K. and US as the quotes demonstrate that this spelling can be found in both countries (unsurprising, as in much (most?) of England, most of Northern Ireland - as in the comic representation of a Northern Irish accent found in the comments section to this article[1] - and much of the U.S they’re homophones). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to have the CFI mandated discussion first. You can't just fail it outright without that. Theknightwho (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here as well, no CFI vote without cites. AG202 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CFI vote for are[edit]

(Requested by @Theknightwho)

  1. Delete, should not be kept without 3 citations. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't RFD. If we don't have sufficient cites, then let it time out and fail it. Otherwise, this kind of vote just causes problems if and when a sufficient number of citations are provided. Theknightwho (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "let it time out and fail it" Yes, that was always the plan. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abstain/comment I'm not sure if this vote is going ahead or should go ahead, we would ideally have a clearer policy on that, but even though a 'deliberate misspelling' of a word could be thought of as a separate sense, or subsense, of the word to 'misspelling' for this and possibly other words, a usage note will also do the job. If the 'deliberate misspelling' sense fails then the citations could be transferred to the main sense of 'misspelling' and the usage note could be kept in place. The fact that there are only two cites may trouble some people but I'm sure other Twitter/Reddit/non-durable internet cites can be found, so in my mind there's widespread usage in any case. We would only need to find one non-deliberate misspelling to add to the two deliberate misspellings if we were to keep it as a misspelling entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFV Failed. (0-1) Ioaxxere (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third person singular simple present of "be"[edit]

"They" can be used as the third person singular epicene pronoun, and the respective copula is "are". NutronStar45 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:are&oldid=71596450"