Talk:early grave

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

early grave

Rfd-sense X 3:

1. Death at a young age.
2. An act of sentencing of someone under the who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime to death row. Early death row.
3. An execution or death sentence of someone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime. Early capital punishment.

These "definitions" miss the idiomatic sense, now added. I didn't find any evidence at COCA of these. Arguably these are included in the new sense. If not, they should be RfVed. I don't think that there is an "literal" use of this collocation. The translations might need to be checked. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that good dictionaries contain a metonymous sense of grave as "death". As such, it may be that all senses of this should be deleted. I think the kind of metalepsis involved in the sense marked as idiomatic may warrant an entry, but I am not sure. See the usage examples. No OneLook reference has this. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of definitions #2 and #3 (#3 and #4 in the entry). #1 (#2 in the entry) seems to be a poorer version of the definition you've created. Delete that one, maybe move the other two to RFV. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Failed RFD. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

early grave

Two senses:

1. An act of sentencing of someone under the who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime to death row. Early death row.
2. An execution or death sentence of someone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime. Early capital punishment.

First of all, how are these distinct, second of all, how would/could one use them? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thirdly, how do we know they are real? Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Logic of moving it here is you can't cite something if you don't know what it means. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what something means if you don't see it in use and it isn't in, say, any OneLook reference in the sense involved? The more "novel" proposed senses and entries we have, the more we need to use citations and the less we can rely on, erm, borrowing definitions from other sources. I am increasingly an admirer and user of Wordnik, which almost always has real usage examples, which sometimes reveal meanings that they have not yet added. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)