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.
"About to cry." Equinox◑ 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Only 3 and 4 are not found in MWOnline. "Moist" could have about as many senses as "wet" (12 @ MWO) or "dry" (32 @ MWO) do or at least as many as are on a continuum defined by "wet" and "dry" as poles. For example, "wet" as in "wet paint" is distinguished from other senses of "wet" and "moist paint" has 300+ hits at bgc. Is that included in "slightly wet"? It actually seems closer to sense 4. "Moist", "wet", and "dry" all seem to have senses that are relative to what is "normal" or "typical" for the nouns which they modify. I could imagine two generic senses: "slightly wet" (sense 1); "not completely dry" (sense 4, modified); "tearful"; and some other senses where neither "wet" nor "dry" are normally poles of the same attribute.
On a hunch, I just looked "moist goods", by analogy to dry goods. More than 300 hits at bgc. That might be a set phrase in special contexts, but it suggests that "moist" probably shares many applications with "wet" and "dry" do. DCDuringTALK 17:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems relevant to the entry though not relevant to my questions. There might be, eventually, 30 definitions of moist, I'mnot challenging that. I'm just challenging the current ones. If some of these are distinct, the wording doesn't tell me how. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Au contraire. A definition is not independent of the other definitions for the PoS that appear in the entry. The issue is how to we achieve coverage of the range of usage. In this case, there are two approaches to covering the range of usage. One is to define "moist" in reference to "dry" and "wet" wherever possible. The other is to have a structure of definitions that parallels MWO's approach to "wet" and "dry". DCDuringTALK 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Not dry surely just means "slightly wet". --well, not exactly. Moist lips are lips that are not dried out, but they are not necessarlly slightly wet: they are suggestive of containing or being filled with moisture. I think senses "Filled with, characterised, or suggestive of liquid or moisture" and "Not dry, not dried out" can be on the same line. Leasnam 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this already occurred to me.If I poured a larged bucket of water over a small sponge, it would be not dry, but unless evidence shows otherwise, it wouldn't be moist it would be soaking or drenched (etc.) So (IMO, unless evidence shows otherwise) this sense of moist only applies to things that are slightly wet, hence it is redundant. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see where you're going. It would be ambiguous and is probably not a good definition because it leaves an open end...A better one then might be "containing some moisture, as to not be dry or dried out"? or a qualifier for (of skin, lips) might be needed. Leasnam 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I gave this page a decent going-over. Tried to incorporate the above. Go ahead and remove the banner if you're happy. Ƿidsiþ 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll assume that you are. Stricken. Ƿidsiþ 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Rfv-sense: soft, supple. In the use example, "moist lips" refers to lips that are somewhat wet. While something that's moist may also be supple, I don't think moist on its own means supple. Evidence? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The opposite of moist is dry, and dry things tend to be stiff and hard to bend. It does make sense to me at least... —CodeCat 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not a definition, is it? Someone who's intelligent may be educated, and someone who's educated may be intelligent, it doesn't mean that "educated" is a definition for "intelligent" or vice versa. It's just a mental association between two ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)