Talk:wohlfeil

"Literally the first and therefore the second"

@Fay Freak, I don't quite understand the meaning of "literally the first and therefore the second". "Second-class"/"low-quality" perhaps? Hvergi (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "literally sense 1 and therefore sense 2", i.e. "cheap and nasty"? But yes, it should be rewritten more clearly. Equinox ◑ 17:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hvergi, Equinox, Jberkel: The meaning in those quotes is that certain objects are 1. inexpensive to have or obtainable with but small economic expense 2. therefore have little probative value.

There is a problem with uses of terms, i.e. a lexical instance, using multiple senses ascribed to a lexeme at once. Sometimes, circumventing such a possible problem, one can discern out of this that there is actually one monolithic sense but this is hard to defend here: there is the narrow price-related sense and an extended sense any word for cheap has across languages and which is expected by dictionary users to be described. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think most dictionary readers want to know about a "type-token distinction". Please try to simplify and improve. I've been outrageously bold and put what I think you meant, but my German is almost non-existent, so I'm sure it needs work (but the prior definition was really unusable). I also changed "low-cost and therefore little convincing" because (i) I don't see why convincingness is related to cost and (ii) "little" seemed to be used ungrammatically here. Thank you. Equinox ◑ 23:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)