Talk:I'll see you and raise you
Is this "X and Y" placeholder format acceptable on Wiktionary? Equinox 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I hope so, because otherwise I don't know how to handle this entry. Please click "entry" and then "What links here" and you'll see a list of special cases which all redirct here, such as "I'll see your". It would be a bad use of effort to make separate entries for each of those, and very hard to keep them synchronized if we did. Language Lover 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I dislike this solution, but it seems to be the best we can come up with. It would be more precise if the placeholders indicated grammatical function ("NP1", "VP", "Adj", "Adv", "Det"), but they would be even less searchable and intelligible to normal users. When applicable the "one", "someone", and "something" placeholders are nice to those who dislike formulas and mathematics. DCDuring TALK 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would hazard that, at least in this case, see and raise have special senses individually; for instance, couldn't you "see a bet" (accept it) without mentioning any raising? Even if that is the case, "see [amount] and raise [amount]" is pretty much a fixed phrase, and I agree we can't do a lot about it when Wiktionary's entries are more "freeform" than semantically oriented (and the latter would need a lot of expertise, since I'm sure even the career academics wouldn't agree on the best approach to that). I wasn't trying to kill the entry on the basis of "X and Y", but on the other hand it would be disingenuous to think anyone would actually look it up in its current format. Equinox 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- "see" and "raise" individually have pure semantics the same as together in "see and raise". We quickly get into pragmatics, which I persist in holding do not normally belong in Wiktionary, especially for phrases. If we could be a grammar and usage reference, perhaps, but I think that is not an easy thing for a wiki. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- When I made this entry, I knew noone would look it up in this form. The entry is just a convenient place for all the look-up-able things (like I'll see your) to point to. People could very well look those up, and it would be clunky to give each a separate entry. Language Lover 05:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Keep The second snowclone-related definition puts it firmly into the realm of idioms. Circeus 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, unless we want to add a policy that allows X and Y in the titles of articles. Although I do see the point that some of these merit an article, but it's not easy to come up with a title for them. Mglovesfun 09:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Idiomatic phrase. kwami 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- "I'll see your X and raise you Y" is not an idiomatic phrase and I doubt anybody has ever said it. You might have an argument for "I'll see your", or for "and raise you", but not for this X-Y entry. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the only "variables" that we seem to have accepted in headwords are "one", "someone", "something", and "somebody" and forms thereof (possessive, plural, reflexive). I think it would be a WT:BP matter to raise (again). Including all kinds of formulas in a wiki supposed to be of use to a general population seems over the top. It will not prevent contributors from adding particular instantiations of the formula.
- I continue to believe that the approaches of including highest-frequency instantiations of such formulas as headwords, as red-linked or unlinked derived terms, and/or as usage examples or in quotations would give users full accessible benefit of our understanding of the these expressions without requiring users to learn something highly specific to our site. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion seems to have died. I still think this should be decomposed to extra senses at see and raise (if they're not already present). Equinox ◑ 15:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should start a BP discussion (or find the old one!!!) about the "X" and "Y" business. I just looked at COCA and couldn't find instantiation there of the formula that occurred twice. Your immediately preceding suggestion is certainly essential. Above you had made a suggestion about adding the collocations "I'll see your" and "and raise you". We have similar things entered as phrases, but they mostly look like things to be cleaned out to me. I'd be happy to hear reasons why they ought to be in here, especially since they would make good use of the "Phrase" heading which I have been converting to other PoS headers in some fairly obvious cases in English. Is that another BP topic>?
- Another thought: Move to I'll see you and raise you, which looks quite attestable. The X and Y usage could appear in a usage note or as unwikilinked alternative forms. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the "action" implied by the phrase (how much is put down)?
I arrived here wanting to use the well known phrase, but not knowing it well enough - the perfect use of a dictionary. Searching "C you and raise you", I appreciate the corrective value in finding this page.
However, discovering "see" instead of "C", and considering the examples, I was confused. I had assumed "C" was etymologically short for something like "Counter" or "Capture", reasonably implying one would "match" the bet and then raise it. However, the word "see" strongly implies no action, and the examples well allow that interpretation. "See" leaves ambiguous meaning, which I hope someone of knowledge might resolve.
Does "see your 10 and raise you 20" mean I lay down "20" or "30" (first matching, not just "seeing", the first 10)? Can I "see your 10 and raise you 5"? No such example if offered, but even so would be a roundabout way to clarify. I am sure this is obvious to you poker folk... and that is why you don't need this page. For me, I dug about for a bit on the net and came to no resolution, and then considered it should be left to a more knowledgeable source. Can someone address and clarify the ambiguity "see" raises?
Csmwww 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You need to look at the Poker (or other card game) definitions for the two verbs see and raise. SemperBlotto 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)