Talk:polar question
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
SoP. google books:"question|questions is|are polar" -"in question is polar".—msh210℠ 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd tend to want to keep this per the discussion on #free variable, but the zero dictionaries having the term at “polar question”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. set me in doubt. In any case, the "polar question" has only been make look SoPish by having a dedicated sense at polar: Of a question, having but two possible answers, yes and no. I did not know what "polar question" was before I looked up the definition, unlike with "yes-no question". OTOH, when looking for "polar question", the user can at worst give it a try at "polar" after an unsuccessful search at "polar question", and the term "polar question" can be mentioned in a quotation or an example sentence at the dedicated sense at "polar" to facilitate findability. --Dan Polansky 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well I'd say that if it is used in linguistics, keep it. Where in polar does it say "that can only take a yes or no answer". To me it's clearly not just a question which is polar. So if attestable with this precise meaning, keep. If not, don't. WT:RFV#polar question anyone? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the sense of "polar" here is a little broader; something like "admitting of no shades of grey". See e.g. the smattering of hits for google books:"polar statement". But I don't think this is sum of parts for all who use it; the community of use for polar question is not a subset of the community of use for this sense of polar. Hence the occasional need to define it explicitly. And defining things explicitly is what we do best; so why not keep. Also, this seems like just a bit of a fried egg. "Are you a Christian or are you some kind of Commie?" would be a question that is polar (admitting only two responses), but nonetheless not a polar question, as I understand it. -- Visviva 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this gets kept I'll rfd the sense that has been added at (deprecated template usage) polar, which looks wrong or even farcical to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, MG, as written, that sense seems silly. Perhaps it can be revised instead of RfDed.
- I think this is a keeper in the context indicated, per Visviva. I'm not so sure that it means no gray area. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this gets kept I'll rfd the sense that has been added at (deprecated template usage) polar, which looks wrong or even farcical to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the sense of "polar" here is a little broader; something like "admitting of no shades of grey". See e.g. the smattering of hits for google books:"polar statement". But I don't think this is sum of parts for all who use it; the community of use for polar question is not a subset of the community of use for this sense of polar. Hence the occasional need to define it explicitly. And defining things explicitly is what we do best; so why not keep. Also, this seems like just a bit of a fried egg. "Are you a Christian or are you some kind of Commie?" would be a question that is polar (admitting only two responses), but nonetheless not a polar question, as I understand it. -- Visviva 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)