Talk:bigly
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: June–August 2020
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense "In a big way, greatly; to a great extent, on a large scale", which User:Akeosnhaoe has tried to remove twice out of process. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Added three from books. The fourth existing one was Rush Limbaugh's Web site: okay for CFI? I imagine not. Equinox ◑
- Citable abundantly from Google News (WaPo, NYT, National Review, The Guardian, Hollywood Reporter, as well not durably archived sites such as Politico, CBS News, NPR, The Hill, CNN, BBC News, Slate). How could this be called rare? DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: If those are from recent years, aren't those just references to a mishearing of the incumbent U.S. president's pet adjective "big-league"? Tharthan (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Citable abundantly from Google News (WaPo, NYT, National Review, The Guardian, Hollywood Reporter, as well not durably archived sites such as Politico, CBS News, NPR, The Hill, CNN, BBC News, Slate). How could this be called rare? DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd label it "nonstandard", since it definitely seems like the usual word for largely or greatly is "largely" or "greatly". I don't think it meets our usual (vague) criteria for being "rare", though maybe "uncommon" (or just let "nonstandard" do). - -sche (discuss) 08:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is no longer, even its post-Trump incarnation, limited to articles about Trump. The numerous cites from contemporary (the past 5 years) opinion and news sources suggest that it is far from being non-standard or rare. I think writers and speakers have found it amusing to use it to the extent that it has become standard. It reminds me of muchly. See also adverbs big league and big time. DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd label it "nonstandard", since it definitely seems like the usual word for largely or greatly is "largely" or "greatly". I don't think it meets our usual (vague) criteria for being "rare", though maybe "uncommon" (or just let "nonstandard" do). - -sche (discuss) 08:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Something should definitely be added to either the sense line or the entry to clarify the usage. At present, there's nothing indicating that this is humorous precisely because it's non-standard. A non-native speaker using this term in the wrong social context might be unhappily surprised. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Based on the citations, there is no difference in meaning between the pre- and post-Trump meaning of the word (Adverb sense 1). The big change seems to be in its relative frequency. With the meaning in questions: not all uses are humorous, not all uses are political, not all uses are post-Trump, and not all uses are pre-Trump. Trump did not originate the term. He may have blundered onto it. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: Not only did he not originate the term, audio analysts have confirmed that he was never using it. The supposed instances on the campaign trail of him saying "bigly" were actually "big-league". Moreover, when he was personally asked what he was saying, he himself said that he was saying "big-league. Tharthan (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Granted. That said, it's still non-standard, and as best I can tell still deemed inappropriate in higher registers (academic speech, etc.). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. It's formed morphologically in a regular way, with a meaning in accord with its morphology, long-standing use with that meaning, in some dictionaries. We should label it because we have a long tradition of prescription and it is non-standard because ??? DCDuring (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not prescription, but rather description. Our brang entry clarifies usage, even though that word similarly has regular morphology (arguably more regular than brought), a meaning in accord with its morphology, and long-standing use with that meaning. Perhaps it's my particular sociolect; to my ear, bigly and brang are similar in register and carry specific connotations of non-standardness that synonyms greatly / largely / hugely and brought do not carry. Again, totally separately from the current US administration. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think a usage note is in order. Something noting that although the construction is standard, most speakers of English would consider the term nonstandard, and that Donald Trump popularized the word, which is often used in allusion to his use of it. And that use of it as a serious word is uncommon to rare. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- But saying that Trump popularised it would be telling a falsehood, for reasons mentioned above. We can't say that he popularised a word that he didn't use. That is nonsensical.
- What is said in the etymology section is enough. It was popularised due to misanalysis of a totally different phrase. Tharthan (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think a usage note is in order. Something noting that although the construction is standard, most speakers of English would consider the term nonstandard, and that Donald Trump popularized the word, which is often used in allusion to his use of it. And that use of it as a serious word is uncommon to rare. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not prescription, but rather description. Our brang entry clarifies usage, even though that word similarly has regular morphology (arguably more regular than brought), a meaning in accord with its morphology, and long-standing use with that meaning. Perhaps it's my particular sociolect; to my ear, bigly and brang are similar in register and carry specific connotations of non-standardness that synonyms greatly / largely / hugely and brought do not carry. Again, totally separately from the current US administration. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. It's formed morphologically in a regular way, with a meaning in accord with its morphology, long-standing use with that meaning, in some dictionaries. We should label it because we have a long tradition of prescription and it is non-standard because ??? DCDuring (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Based on the citations, there is no difference in meaning between the pre- and post-Trump meaning of the word (Adverb sense 1). The big change seems to be in its relative frequency. With the meaning in questions: not all uses are humorous, not all uses are political, not all uses are post-Trump, and not all uses are pre-Trump. Trump did not originate the term. He may have blundered onto it. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Something should definitely be added to either the sense line or the entry to clarify the usage. At present, there's nothing indicating that this is humorous precisely because it's non-standard. A non-native speaker using this term in the wrong social context might be unhappily surprised. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)