Talk:working class
Hmm . . . the American equivalent, "blue collar", is variously used pejoratively, with pride or simply descriptively. Is the designation "working class" necessarily pejorative? I would think that "working class", at the end of the day, simply means "working class." Certainly we should note that it is used pejoratively, and we might want to have more than one sense, starting with the most literal, but the definition as given seems to be trying too hard and, unless the term really is used exclusiely as a pejorative, inaccurate.
Could British speakers please comment on this usage? Even if it's accurate, the definition could stand tightening. -dmh 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (dmh)
- I agree, "working class" is generally a positive thing at least from my US prospective. If you google it, it'll turn up a bunch of academic and socialist stuff as the first hits.
- I wouldn't call 'blue collar' an American equivalent, given that we use both words and blue collars are the well-payed industrial subset of the working class. It belongs as a synomyn certainly, synomyns aren't supposed to be exact. --Eean 08:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "Equivalent" was too strong. Maybe "analog"? The issue is also a bit clouded because "working class" in the US doesn't carry quite the same connotations as it does in the UK. If Toby Keith put out something called "Working Class Hero" it wouldn't be coming from the same angle as John Lennon's.
- I've never been quite comfortable with synonyms. I tend to just list possible synonyms under "See Also". The reader can then chase the links and decide how similar the words are in which senses. To me, "synonym" implies that the terms can be used interchangeably with the same connotations, and this practically never happens. But then, why talk about synonyms at all? Certainly many pairs of words are interchangeable in some but not all senses. They could be listed as synonyms, but I'm always a little leery of that, since the naive reader won't know when they can and can't be interchanged. -dmh 14:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Synonyms are now supposed to be for each sense of the term, at least where different lists of synonyms correspond to the different senses. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've never been quite comfortable with synonyms. I tend to just list possible synonyms under "See Also". The reader can then chase the links and decide how similar the words are in which senses. To me, "synonym" implies that the terms can be used interchangeably with the same connotations, and this practically never happens. But then, why talk about synonyms at all? Certainly many pairs of words are interchangeable in some but not all senses. They could be listed as synonyms, but I'm always a little leery of that, since the naive reader won't know when they can and can't be interchanged. -dmh 14:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rfd discussion[edit]
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.
Adjectival sense, looks purely attributive --Type56op9 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- google books:"very working class" shows true adjective usage, but it’s much more commonly spelt with a hyphen. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have working-class; this should be reduced to an "alternative form of". bd2412 T 20:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Or is that the other way around? Etymologically: working class#Noun → working-class (attributive use of noun) → working class#Adjective. Is working-class the predominant form in predicate use? DCDuring TALK 20:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have working-class; this should be reduced to an "alternative form of". bd2412 T 20:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would say delete on this occasion. We have an entry for the noun, and the attributive adjective (working-class), and I think that is all that we need. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- If it were only attributive it wouldn't merit a separate PoS section. Evidently poor presentation of such terms helps maintain poor understanding of the grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- What about John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"? Is that not adjectival? Or is that the special "noun use as an adjective" thing? Tharthan (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is the ordinary, not special, attributive use of the noun phrase, which I'd write as "working-class hero". In this case confusion would not arise because working class is lexicalized for most readers, but it could be read as a class hero who is working. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I meant "special" as in "specialised use". Also, wouldn't those two things have different pronunciations then? A "working class hero" as in a class hero that is working would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋˌklæs.hiːɹoʊ/, whilst a working class hero would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋklæs.hiːɹoʊ/ or /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋ.klæs.hiːɹoʊ/? Tharthan (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, in speech you don't need hyphens. This RfD is about a strictly orthographic matter. Hyphens are more or less strictly orthographic in contrast to solid spellings which seem to reflect pronunciation differences, specifically micro pauses. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I meant "special" as in "specialised use". Also, wouldn't those two things have different pronunciations then? A "working class hero" as in a class hero that is working would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋˌklæs.hiːɹoʊ/, whilst a working class hero would be /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋklæs.hiːɹoʊ/ or /ə.wɜː(r)kɪŋ.klæs.hiːɹoʊ/? Tharthan (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is the ordinary, not special, attributive use of the noun phrase, which I'd write as "working-class hero". In this case confusion would not arise because working class is lexicalized for most readers, but it could be read as a class hero who is working. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- What about John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"? Is that not adjectival? Or is that the special "noun use as an adjective" thing? Tharthan (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- If it were only attributive it wouldn't merit a separate PoS section. Evidently poor presentation of such terms helps maintain poor understanding of the grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
*Redirect to working-class Purplebackpack89 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: WHY? For example, can you show that the hyphenated form is the normal form for predicate use? DCDuring TALK 19:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Keep adjective sense as alt form (and keep noun sense outright) Purplebackpack89 16:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep the adjectival sense, per DCDuring: has predicative uses (as opposed to attributive) modified by "very". Quotations: "tinned fish (all right as an ingredient in something else, such as fishcakes or a tuna-mayonnaise sandwich, but very working class if served on its own)", "my background is very working class and I have all those sensitivities around being working class.", "It was very working class. And I understood enough of the class system", "This seemed very working class, very nonbourgeois." --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Adjectival sense kept, but content moved to working-class, with unhyphenated sense changed to "alternative spelling of". bd2412 T 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)