Talk:r-word
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
I ask that proper attestations as per WT:ATTEST are entered into Wiktionary for all the senses. The most likely pertinent criterion is "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year", where I emphasize "permanently recorded media" as traditionally interpreted in RFV processes; I don't believe "The New York Times" quotes currently listed for the 4th sense are permanently recorded as per the traditional interpretation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are now three citations for sense two. There are also at least three citations for the "catch-all" sense four, but I am leery about having such a sense as a "definition" of word. bd2412 T 03:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are examples of catch-all senses out there. For example, see sense 3 of (deprecated template usage) board. I don't like them either, but what else can you do with a term that is used in a catch-all way?
- As for the status of the NYT citations, I can easily find other printed NYT print citations. When I put them in, I was getting kind of lazy. I'm absolutely certain r-word meaning retirement and recession would easily pass strict CFI in just half an hour of looking. R-word meaning retirement pops up whenever a star athlete is way past his prime: Favre has been dancing around the R-word for three years now and the like. R-word meaning recession pops up whenever the economy starts slowing down: Despite poor jobs reports two quarters in a row, the White House refuses to mention the R-word is common enough. Choor monster (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- My issue with the catch-all sense is really an RfD issue - that it is SOP; I believe that it is only where attestation supports a particular sense (as with sense 2 here) that the configuration of letter-hyphen-"word" becomes idiomatic. bd2412 T 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- The construction may be SOP, but no particular sense ever is. Do you want a RfV for sense 3 of (deprecated template usage) board? Compare with Appendix:Snowclones. I've been browsing through all sorts of citations, and in some of them, I'm stymied for a bit as to what the word being euphemized actually is. Here is a deliberately humorous example. In fact, the only instance of SOP would be something like one example I came across: a scientific study which reported success at training Japanese listeners with English as a late second language to hear the difference between L and R. The study involved listening to pairs like "light" and "right", "long" and "wrong", etc., and summarized results in terms of L-words versus R-words. Along the way I've been finding other senses that I recognize of usages I've come across but when I went on my minispree last month, simply never came to mind, eg, t-word=terrorism The FBI will not use the T-word, or m-word=marriage, l-word=love, r-word=relationship, etc. Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now that you bring it up, I do want an RFD of sense 3 of board. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I think we need a standard policy for these "snowclone"-words. They are in some kind of linguistic limbo, between being a genuine word and being a standard construction of sorts. A more obscure example, introduced by me and which drove me nuts trying to shoehorn it in was (deprecated template usage) sosh, as an all-purpose abbreviation for fixed phrases beginning with "social". For example, "social security number" (what's your sosh?, a common question when calling certain bureaucracies, "social studies", (at college, like "chem 101", short for "chemistry 101"). A more experienced editor fixed it up for me a bit, but I still was not happy with the results. Choor monster (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now that you bring it up, I do want an RFD of sense 3 of board. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- The construction may be SOP, but no particular sense ever is. Do you want a RfV for sense 3 of (deprecated template usage) board? Compare with Appendix:Snowclones. I've been browsing through all sorts of citations, and in some of them, I'm stymied for a bit as to what the word being euphemized actually is. Here is a deliberately humorous example. In fact, the only instance of SOP would be something like one example I came across: a scientific study which reported success at training Japanese listeners with English as a late second language to hear the difference between L and R. The study involved listening to pairs like "light" and "right", "long" and "wrong", etc., and summarized results in terms of L-words versus R-words. Along the way I've been finding other senses that I recognize of usages I've come across but when I went on my minispree last month, simply never came to mind, eg, t-word=terrorism The FBI will not use the T-word, or m-word=marriage, l-word=love, r-word=relationship, etc. Choor monster (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- My issue with the catch-all sense is really an RfD issue - that it is SOP; I believe that it is only where attestation supports a particular sense (as with sense 2 here) that the configuration of letter-hyphen-"word" becomes idiomatic. bd2412 T 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Senses 1 and 3 failed, senses 2 and 4 (now 1 and 2) passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Senses 1 and 3 restored, now fully cited. Choor monster (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)