Talk:beached

RFD discussion

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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Adjective: Sense: Run or brought ashore.

Unlike the figurative sense, which seems to behave more as an adjective, this literal sense does not. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the "noun" sense looks like it's supposed to be an adjective. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the adjective sense: In the sentence, "We came upon a beached whale", "beached" is functioning as an adjective Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood DCDuring. He was suggesting that the first sense is not an adjective while the second (the one in the example) is an adjective. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yes. If this were a true adjective, it would sometimes appear modified by too or very or in "more beached than". I didn't find such for this sense.

Any past participle can be used to modify a noun. Not every past participle has any other attributes of an adjective or has a distinctive meaning when modifying a noun. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying into the argument that "it's not an adjective unless it can take an adverb", nor the argument that "if it can't take an adverb, axe it", nor the argument that all past participles can or are used to modify nouns Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not for sale anyway. So there. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - that seems to be what the adjective means. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  That's what the past participle of the verb means. This is not used as a true adjective, unlike the other sense. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  The example shows it modifying a noun - that used to make it an adjective when I was at school. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  It functions as a modifier of a noun, as can virtually any noun or present or past participle. It fails to clearly behave as an adjective distinguishing itself from the behavior of a participle, not being gradable or comparable.

It would be a colossal waste of time to present all of the senses of all nouns and present and past participles redundantly as adjectives. It might lead non-natives relying on this dictionary to use such words in ways that natives would not. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say keep due to the presence of the second sense. Were it not for this, I would prob agree that there is nothing really special enough about the past participle to warrant its own entry, but for the fact that it's already there...it's not wrong to go ahead and show it. Leasnam (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think something that can take the place of an adjective is not necessarily by extension an adjective. The same that pronouns aren't nouns and nouns aren't pronouns. However, it's probably ok to keep this one as long as the other adjectival sense is kept, as it seems silly to delete one and keep the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Leasnam. DAVilla 00:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an important grammatical test case. Why do we have eaten (consumed by eating) but not bitten (attacked by biting)? Why would we have any of them when it's obvious from the past tense? Are supporters suggesting that we should have an adjective for defragmented, as in "a freshly defragmented hard disk"? Equinox ◑ 00:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 00:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)