Talk:rock hard

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.

---

rock hard

This seems to be an example of a common construction for a large class of adjectives, better treated under the adjective or as an element of grammar in an Appendix. For example consider this bgc search for "gun-barrel straight".

Also, under WT:COALMINE shouldn't the use of a spelled-solid form be attested for each sense? DCDuring TALK 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion for (deprecated template usage) apple pie, and the consensus there was that the literal sense needed to be included in order to balance out the figurative senses. That is, it would be misleading to only indicate figurative senses for the term, when the literal meaning is also in common use. See also w:Mohs scale of mineral hardness to see why the literal sense of rock hard needs a definition. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One issue is whether any one of the possible senses combining senses of rock#Noun and hard#Adjective should be on the first sense line rather than {{&lit}}. Another is whether the open class of constructions of the form N + Adj, with some restrictions on Adj, is appropriately represented. Including every such combination seems absurd, though many seem to believe that each attestable combination would merit an entry. Combined with the absurdity of WT:COALMINE, we seem to be committed to an exceptionally foolish course. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I attested all the meanings, but someone moved most of them to rockhard, which seems to be a disservice, as its not clear which sense they are directed at there.Lucifer 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved them because they are not of rock hard which is the headword in question. It may be that all attestation should be devoted to each sense of rockhard. I would expect that any sense attested in the form rockhard would also be attestable in the form rock hard. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the page for rockhard states only that it is an alternative form, I'd argue that the senses should be moved back to the lemma page. They might be duplicated on the alternative form page, but they shouldn't reside only there since, as Lucifer points out, they are not tied to any senses there. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• keep under all circumstances. rock hard doesn't really mean as hard as rock, but very hard. There could be a verb here too, i.e. "this concert rocks hard" --Rockpilot 05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think that "rock hard" differs from "gun-barrel straight", "ramrod straight", "petal soft", "chrome shiny", and many, many similar N-Adj constructions, almost all of which don't mean anything more than Adj like an N, where N is a paradigm of Adj.

"This concert rocks hard is transparently a simple use of (deprecated template usage) hard. DCDuring TALK

• I've almost never seen it said "rockhard". What I've seen, and no one's mentioned, is "rock-hard". I agree with Pilot that there is enough content to be placed somewhere Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Do you think that all the possibly less common, but attestable collocations of similar form Adj-N can have entries. DCDuring TALK 05:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Is this thread about rock hard, or about all the possible words of the same construction? If the latter, then a separate thread should be started in the Beer Parlour, as this discussion pertains to a particular tagged entry. And why must the decision be all-or-nothing? Language isn't Boolean. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  I was interested in the "principle" being applied to the term in question. Any such principle that is so invoked and is not generally accepted needs to be addressed and its validity challenged, especially here at RfD, which is principally based on reasoned argument Or is it just voting with a figleaf of rationalization.

I think that each of the senses of rock hard needs to be confirmed as being used with the spelling rockhard, because I do not believe that the solid-spelled form is commonly used. The rationale for inclusion of the senses of this term is partially WT:COALMINE, after all. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For you, perhaps, but not to my mind it isn't. I don't think WT:COALMINE has anything to do with the discussion that was started here. It applies only to a tangential topic that invaded the current discussion. Only one sense was raised for discussion, and whether it has a single-word form or not is not critical to retention of the sense. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to extend this discussion also to the other senses given in the entry. I'd say "rock hard" simply means "very hard" and that's basically what the rfd'ed definition currently says. There are two other senses, one referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" muscles (muscles of abdomen, it says, but there's nothing in the quotations that would connect them with the abdomen) and the other referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" penis. As a minimum development to the entry, I would like to combine these three senses into one, defined as "very hard". The quotations could be kept as examples of "very hard" sense. --Hekaheka 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's very clear from the quotations that these do not all mean the same thing. If sentence begins "He was very hard...", the first sense means rigor mortis (or petrification), the second sense means his muscles are toned, and the third sense means his penis is erect. The second and third sense imply an unstated noun that is not implied by the first sense. These cannot be meaningfully combined. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not convincing. Saying that "rock hard penis" means "erect penis" is equal to saying that "red tomato" means "ripe tomato" and thus we should add the sense "ripe" to the word "red". It's true that rock hard penis is erect, but if I'm using "rock hard" I'm discussing a different aspect of the penis than when using "erect". --Hekaheka 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying, so please look at the quotes. I am not talking about situations where "rock hard" is used to modify the word "penis". Rather, I am pointing out that "rock hard" implies "penis", even if the word "penis" is omitted. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's evident from the context. It's not so uncommon to refer to the state of one's penis as if it was equal to one's person, like "I am flaccid", "I am only half-erect". What would make rock hard so special? If you just say "He is rock hard" you may as well refer to the other guy's willpower or physical strength. The first quote clearly mentions "cock" and I suppose it does not refer to a sexually aroused rooster. --Hekaheka 07:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "He is rock hard" has so many possible meanings is what demonstrates that there are multiple senses. The "first quote" you mention is misplaced. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)