Talk:short of
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
"(jocular, in constructions like "X short of a Y", e.g. "a few sandwiches short of a picnic" or "a few cards short of a full deck") mentally unsound, insane".
"Short of" itself does not mean "mentally unsound, insane", though the constructions mean almost that. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I thought these constructions meant "stupid" more often than "insane". Someone has had fun collecting 100 phrases with this meaning here; 21 of them include the words "short of".
Keep, I think, although the definition should be rewritten.--Avenue 09:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)- Okay, I agree Appendix:Snowclones is a better place for it. The new usage note at short of looks good. --Avenue 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I believe there is no possible accurate definition (say, one that is substitutable) for "short of" that fits the construction and is not SoP (ie, equivalating to (deprecated template usage) short + (deprecated template usage) of). The definition seems to me to be a clumsy attempt to include the construction in principal namespace rather than Appendix:Snowclones. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is there not supposed to be any linkage between principal namespace and that appendix? Fugyoo 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Links between the spaces are highly desirable. They just need to serve a good lexicographic purpose, as a link from [[short of]] to a section in [[Appendix:Snowclones]] or a subpage covering "X short of a Y" certainly would. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the disputed sense (which I added) and added a "note" instead. Fugyoo 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Links between the spaces are highly desirable. They just need to serve a good lexicographic purpose, as a link from [[short of]] to a section in [[Appendix:Snowclones]] or a subpage covering "X short of a Y" certainly would. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is there not supposed to be any linkage between principal namespace and that appendix? Fugyoo 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as it doesn't mean what it claims to mean, that is, for the same reasons as DCDuring (NB it's already been removed, so I support that). --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 01:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Less than[edit]
Isn't this meaning the same as the first one, "but"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't failing of be added too? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)