Talk:worst comes to worst
The citation and usex do not support the definition given, since both include the word "if", which our entry would seem to consider redundant. Equinox ◑ 15:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
if the worst come(s) to the worst[edit]
if the worst come(s) to the worst --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
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.
Rfv-sense: def. 2: "(idiomatic) If an already bad situation progresses into a catastrophic situation.", with only a usex: If worst comes to worst, these stock certificates will make fine wallpaper."
- First definition: "(idiomatic) If a possible worst-case scenario actually occurs."
- Is there attestation to distinguish the challenged sense from the first sense (of which it might be a subsense)? Or should this be an RfD? DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The citation previously said "worst comes to worst" (without "if"), but User:Espoo changed it. I've changed it back. The phrase can be used without "if". Equinox ◑ 20:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's an incorrect made up example, not a citation. It's not idiomatic without "if" or some other preceding word such as when, had, let, lest, etc. You misunderstood what is meant by "shortening" in the etymology. --Espoo (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- YOU ARE WRONG, or being deliberately obtuse and pedantic. Search on Google Books for "well, worst comes to worst". The elliptical form is very common. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's a better idea to assume others are acting in good faith and are less obtuse than you. I unsuccessfully tried to find citations without "if" before adding it to what you incorrectly thought was a citation. Instead of edit warring, the correct way to proceed would have been to add the citations you found using your clever addition of "well" to the search. I assumed the form without if was just sloppy transcription of a hard to hear colloquial pronunciation fworst. In any case the question of whether the second sense is truly a different sense or not does not depend on whether the invented example or some citations use if or not because there's no reason why this sense couldn't also have citations with if. --Espoo (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note that the entry contains citations without leading "if". DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's a better idea to assume others are acting in good faith and are less obtuse than you. I unsuccessfully tried to find citations without "if" before adding it to what you incorrectly thought was a citation. Instead of edit warring, the correct way to proceed would have been to add the citations you found using your clever addition of "well" to the search. I assumed the form without if was just sloppy transcription of a hard to hear colloquial pronunciation fworst. In any case the question of whether the second sense is truly a different sense or not does not depend on whether the invented example or some citations use if or not because there's no reason why this sense couldn't also have citations with if. --Espoo (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see that either the undated citation or the 2014 citation support the existence of the distinct sense at all, let alone unambiguously. They look like support for the first sense. I don't really see why we need two definitions, differing only in whether the situation in which the usage occurs is neutral or bad. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 23:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC).
- I don’t see any point in distinguishing the second sense, even if citable. 70.172.194.25 05:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
RFV Resolved, merged senses. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)