Talk:below average

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.

---

below average

A simple, non-idiomatic, combination of below and average. Uncle G 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Very common collocation in the US with strong pejorative connotations. --Connel MacKenzie 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it an idiom, or any more than the sum of its parts, though. How is this idiomatic? Uncle G 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It certainly is common, but not idiomatic. Delete. Atelaes 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it is idiomatic at all. I was suggesting it might meet one of the other criteria on our "Pawley's list." But I can't seem to force myself to look it up. --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: but I am now. --Connel MacKenzie 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would never expect the principal to say, "Your son is under average." A dismal showing in straight up Gooogle hits supports that (barely into double-digits for "he's under-average" and most of those for "average height" or "average weight"). The reason is that below and under mean "lower in value", but the person him- or herself is not lower in value, their scores are. Strong keep. DAVilla 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very poor rationale. Just because one wouldn't use "under" instead of "below" does not make "below average" an idiom. That's at most usage note fodder for under and below explaining the nuances of their respective usages and when one would use one but not the other. Please explain how this phrase is an idiom and satisfies our Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just because. I explained very clearly why one wouldn't use "under" instead. And that explanation extends to why "below" wouldn't make sense in this phrase except as its meaning has widely come to be known.

That is at most usage note fodder for under and below, explaining why one would use one and not the other, as I said. Uncle G 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean to say that this is more than just a nuance. A usage note can't clarify a meaning that a word doesn't have. If "under" doesn't make sense, neither "under" nor "below" make sense.

But even if "below" has the meaning as contained in this phrase, as you claim, it's not completely clear that a usage note is the correct way to handle it. C.f. WT:RFD#active volcano. DAVilla

To answer your point, CFI specifically includes "multiple word terms".

Now, please explain how this is a "combination" of below and average. Let me help you by outlining our definitions of below, one of which we would expect to apply, no? (below updated DAVilla 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

• lower in spatial position; in a lower place
• on a lower storey; (nautical) on a lower deck
• lower in value; (of a temperature) below zero
• downstream; farther down
• south of

DAVilla 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are avoiding answering the question that I've posed twice, now. The onus is on you to show that it is not a simple combination of "below" and "average". "Lower in degree, rate, amount, rank, scale, value, &c." is an attested meaning for "below", and "lower in value/ranking/amount than the average" is what this article says "below average" means. For the third time: Please explain how this phrase is an idiom and satisfies our Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. The article itself gives a wholly non-idiomatic meaning that can be inferred directly from the meanings of the two constituent words. Uncle G 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will answer your question for a second time, since it seems we are counting. As I said above, CFI specifically includes "multiple word terms". To be a bit more thorough, it includes:

• Multiple-word terms such as post office.
• Idioms such as go on and give up the ghost.
• Proverbs
• Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms such as NBA.
• Prefixes and suffixes such as re- and -ist.
• Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing such as 字 or ʃ.

CFI does NOT state that a term has to be an idiom to merit inclusion, as you have demanded of me to prove. It should be idiomatic, that is, "pertaining or conforming to the mode of expression characteristic of a language". However it does not have to be idiomatic in the sense of "resembling or characteristic of an idiom", as is evident from the above.

Your quotation of "Lower in degree, rate, amount, rank, scale, value, &c." from Random House pertains to a preposition, which is clearly the incorrect grammar label for e.g. "a below average child". The onus is on me? Either the burden of proof is yours or you seriously expect me to lay out the definitions in every combination! Whatever, here's a half-hearted attempt:

• lower in spatial position; in a lower place

The student is not the target of any vector from a point located at "average" in the direction of the pull of gravity.

• on a lower storey; (nautical) on a lower deck

The student did not arrive in the present situation by use of an elevator, staircase, escalator, stairlift, or any other conveyor, inclined plane, or vertical transportation device.

• lower in value; (of a temperature) below zero

The student does not mean less to his mother than other students to their mothers. The student may have a temperature, but the student is not a temperature him/herself.

• downstream; farther down

The student is not in the windstream emanating from some "average" that cut the cheese. Anyways, he who smelt it dealt it.

• south of

The student is not necessarily from Dixieland, although the location coincidentally has a disproportionate share.

Now, I realise that Wiktionary is a bit incomplete, so if there are any other definitions you feel are applicable, please let me know. However I'm not interested in hunting down every definition from every dictionary, and anyways I would argue that the point should be that it can be summed here, wouldn't you say? So if there is a definition of below that applies, let's at least agree to add it here. DAVilla 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. bd2412 T 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give a rationale. Uncle G 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, keep because it's a set phrase that is used to largely to the exclusion of other phrases that a non-English speaker might assume would mean the same thing. bd2412 T 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is "idiomatic" in that it is a euphemism for "retarded" in American English, in very, very, VERY widespread colloquial use. Are you suggesting a better explanation of that sense? --Connel MacKenzie 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)