Talk:textbook

Citations

I put three citations on the citations page, and Equinox has added quite a few (six or more) to the page itself. Given that the article has different definitions, should my three citations go back into the article? Also {{cite-book}} is very useful, as it does all the formatting. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification

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 think the adjective is really little more than compound use. Jcwf 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(This should be at RFD, not RFV.) IMO, the top one ("of or pertaining to textbooks or their styles") is an unnecessary adjectival-use-of-noun entry, but the others seem worth keeping, e.g. "a textbook case" (no real textbook is involved; it's a sort of idiomatic metaphor). Equinox ◑ 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It can readily be attested that the word meets the tests for being an adjective: modifiable by "too" and "very"; can serve as predicate without a determiner; and forms a true comparative ("more textbook than"), not just the collocation in a noun use. I think that usage is in the second and third senses, but it is not perfectly clear. DCDuring TALK 12:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep with or without citations, as it's in common use. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I hereby explicitly claim widespread use as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 12:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna cite it when I get home anyway. Although, I'm not sure our definitions are that good anyway. Textbook as an adjective means "Of or pertaining to a typical example". I think maybe the "Of or relating to textbooks" sense actually is the noun used attributively. Like a textbook cover, or a textbook title. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've put rfv-sense on all three adjectival senses, that should help. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cited two of three senses. Equinox ◑ 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed the two senses that Equinox cited;
RFV failed the other sense, removed. Thanks for the cites, Equinox and Mglovesfun!
—Ruakh_TALK 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)