Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Rfv-sense: a god from the machine. Has it ever been used in English with this literal meaning? I know that the literal translation is mentioned in discussion of the term. DCDuringTALK 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I note this sense dates from the original entry, which did not include an etymology. Pingku 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It still deserves a chance. If someone has heard it used literally or can imagine it, they may have a good idea how to find the citations. It might just be uncommon or used in some specific context. DCDuringTALK 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to look for a specific quote, but I've come across this literal meaning often in discussions of Classical theater. It might be worth adding a context tag or two. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
He found his eternal and his infinite in the pure machine-principle of perfect co-ordination into one pure, complex, infinitely repeated motion, like the spinning of a wheel; but a productive spinning, as the revolving of the universe may be called a productive spinning, a productive repetition through eternity, to infinity. And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.
I don't think this applies as attestation of the disputed sense. According to the explanatory notes to the book "Cambridge edition of the works of D.H. Lawrence, Women in Love", ed. David Farmer et al, p. 556, "deus ex machina" is used here to mean "providential interposition", which is same as the current sense #2. --Hekaheka 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. At least they recognised it as ambiguous - which in itself means we can't use it. Pingku 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)