Talk:Tom

Tom Short for Thomas usage tom with reference to male cat "TomCat"

         with reference to girls acting like a boy "TomGirl"

— This comment was unsigned.

bells

It strikes me that "A nickname for any of several exceptionally large bells" and "Any large deep-toned bell" are just two attempts at wording the same thing, rather than two distinct senses. Any opposition to merging them in, say, {{n-g|Nickname for}} any large, deep-toned bell.? - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No objection from me, although I would say that the Oxford Great Tom now has the staus of a proper name, and possibly some of the others. SpinningSpark 19:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked that a bit. "Any (or a particular one) of several large, deep-toned bells" implies there are a limited number of Toms, but the cites are not using the word in that way. They use it as if any deep-toned bell is a Tom. There are a limited number of Great Toms (cf Big Ben) but this entry is for "Tom" on its own. The entry currently reads "A large, deep-toned bells, or a particularly notable example of one". SpinningSpark 01:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

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.

---

Tom

1. Used since 1377 as a type of a nickname for a common man.
2. In the 17th century, applied as a nickname for several exceptionally large balls.

The first one is likely ok and just needs a bit of rewording, the second one may have to be removed, as I for one haven't a damn clue what it means, and if nobody knows or can figure it out, better to remove it than having something meaningless. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Was vandalism in this edit which changed bells to balls. See [1] to see what it is talking about. SpinningSpark 02:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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: A nickname for several exceptionally large balls. [17th century].

I'm not sure what this means, nor how to go about verifying it. Any onomasticians want to try? DCDuring TALK 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting; it was one of the three contributions ever user 80.109.76.27 (talk), however it was 'exceptionally large bells' as opposed to balls. A bit like Humpty-Dumpty actually being the nickname for a large canon. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for -- and shame on me for not -- checking the history. But I would still RfV it. I'd be happy if either the "bells" or "balls" definitions were addressed. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, many large bells have names - (deprecated template usage) Big Ben in London, "Great George" in Bristol and so on. But the name part (Ben, George etc.) does not seem to need a separate dictionary entry. SemperBlotto 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

... and, of course, Great Tom. Dbfirs 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How does one verify the use of a proper name in a given sense? Do such things just get a free pass, subject to an RfD popularity contest? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This source gives another Great Tom at Lincoln as well as the one at Oxford and this source appears to be using "Big Tom" generically to mean any large bell. And this one lists Toms at Oxford, Lincoln, Exeter and St Pauls in a way that might be considered generic. SpinningSpark 02:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Slang and its Analogues, Past and Present defines Tom as a "deep-toned bell" and gives the etymology as a probable onomatopoeia. SpinningSpark 02:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

These look promising. The entry would seem to need an additional Etymology if we accept that plausible one, possibly qualified with a "possibly". DCDuring TALK 06:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have split the entry by etymology as suggested. Are there any objections to de-tagging the term as RFV-passed on the strength of the citations linked-to above? - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Diminutive?

Is "diminutive" really a suitable definition for "Tom"? I can't say any of the quotes have any obvious diminutive aspect to them. "A shortened form of the given name Thomas" seems much more suitable. TChapProctor (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April 2020–February 2024

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.

---

Tom

Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Untagged by @Mnemosientje here. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Azerbaijani works will include references to foreigners (real or fictional) named Tom. E.g. here, talking about Tom Sawyer, here, apparently talking about Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, or here, talking about a zoologist affiliated with Oxford University. But I'm not sure about the definition "A transliteration of the English male given name Tom." How can it be a transliteration if the starting and ending points are in the same script and identical? Are we just using "transliteration" to emphasize that it's not used natively? 70.172.194.25 04:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Appears to be cited and RFV resolved. I agree "transliteration" is the wrong word, so I'll adjust the definition. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)