Talk:I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Smuconlaw in topic I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream
Deletion discussion
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Some people may quote this song title when they're having ice cream, but it's just a song title. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I've most certainly heard it being used otherwise. A good example is its usage in ice cream advertisements, which seem to use it as a catchphrase, and one of the Pokémon movies, just to name a few examples out of many more that I'm sure are out there. Perhaps you should've sent this to RFV, where I could find citations that explicitly use this phrase for what it says in the definition. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also I must mention that a source is not "quoting" the song title unless the phrase is in quotation marks, the term is found in its capitalized form ("I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream"), or if the speaker/writer is specifically talking about the song in that context. If we find three citations that are not like this, then we're good to go. Like I said, it's more of an RFV thing. Is it okay if I move this to RFV? Philmonte101 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care if you call it quoting, repeating or recapitulating- it doesn't have anything to do with my point. Basic English comprehension tip: when someone says "x, but y", you can be pretty sure that "x" isn't the point of the sentence. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- My point was that it's not "just a song title". That's why I suggested RFV; so I can prove that it's more than that. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care if you call it quoting, repeating or recapitulating- it doesn't have anything to do with my point. Basic English comprehension tip: when someone says "x, but y", you can be pretty sure that "x" isn't the point of the sentence. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Leaning keep. I am dubious about the phrase being "coined" in the song title. My hunch is that it is more likely that the song writers co-opted an existing phrase. I also tend to think of "scream" as an action more associated with terror than with fun. For example, I get over 5,000 Google Books hits for "scream for ice cream", but only 24 for "scream for candy", only two for "scream for cake", and only one for "scream for pie". Is there any other food for which people are most commonly described as "screaming"? bd2412 T 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I added this entry not because it's "I scream for ice cream", but more because it is a common catch phrase, especially, like I said, found in ice cream advertisements, etc. scream for cake I would guess would be SOP, see scream + for + cake. However, the definitions of all the terms linked in the header of I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream do not altogether define the catchphrase. For instance, I don't think someone would say "I scream, you scream, we all scream for beer." (except maybe as a jocular reference to the ice cream catchphrase). It's a rhyme, and "I scream" sounds like "ice cream". That's the catchy part. "Scream for cake" doesn't have that same feel, you know. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware that the meaning goes beyond the phrase itself. I was merely pointing out that the phrase itself has some unidiomatic characteristics. bd2412 T 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I added this entry not because it's "I scream for ice cream", but more because it is a common catch phrase, especially, like I said, found in ice cream advertisements, etc. scream for cake I would guess would be SOP, see scream + for + cake. However, the definitions of all the terms linked in the header of I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream do not altogether define the catchphrase. For instance, I don't think someone would say "I scream, you scream, we all scream for beer." (except maybe as a jocular reference to the ice cream catchphrase). It's a rhyme, and "I scream" sounds like "ice cream". That's the catchy part. "Scream for cake" doesn't have that same feel, you know. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per BD2412. Benwing2 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Regardless of its origin, it's a cool pun, but it doesn't have any actual meaning. I'm not sure I agree with the definition or that this phrase even has a definition beyond its transparent (double) meaning. --WikiTiki89 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that an RfV question? bd2412 T 03:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be an embarrassing inclusion and of no use to anyone. Punning, rhyming, frequency, and allusiveness are all mere makeweights vainly attempting make up for the evident lack of any good rationale (not even one from Pawley's capacious list).
- Almost any useful collocation that has rhyme or alliteration is likely to get higher counts than a comparable phrase without.
- What's next, punning riddles? Why not have the punning political slogan of 1960, 1968, and 1972: "We can't stand Pat (stand pat)." (Pat = Nixon's wife)? DCDuring TALK 00:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems like a rhyme rather than an actual interjection that anyone actually uses. Moreover, how are "ah, mmm, mmmm, mmmmm, mmm-mmm, yum, yummy" really coordinate to it? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, not a separate lexical item, no meaning beyond those of its parts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lean towards deleting. It's not always quoting a song title, but it's always quoting a song. (The title occurs within the song's lyrics.) Quotation marks are not necessary in order to quote something. Equinox ◑ 10:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see why we'd have this as not a word or an idiom in a language. I think a good comparison would be I would do anything for love, but I won't do that. Often quoted, but ultimately it's the title of a song or an unidiomatic phrase. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As Philmonte said below "I can't even believe this is here in the first place." Double standard, eh? DonnanZ (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Tosh. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone is making fun of me, but why? The phrase is pretty clearly idiomatic, as nobody says it in any different way. Try to find three citations for "I scream, you scream, we all scream for beer." or replace the noun with any other noun than "ice cream", then you can call this "tosh". Philmonte101 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not of you, but of your entry- try not to take it personally. Having sat through a number of midnight showings of the w:The Rocky Horror Picture Show some years ago, I can verify that people in the audience would yell "that man has no neck" at a certain very specific point in the movie. The fact that they didn't yell anything else at that point, and that they only yelled it at that particular time and place are evidence of a tradition among Rocky Horror fans, not of the phrase being idiomatic. There are all kinds of little rituals and practices, from singing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!" or "Happy Birthday to You" to liturgical utterances such as "I now pronounce you man and wife", to various celebrity impressions, and the list goes on and on. These are speech actions that tend to have very specific usage and connotations, but their content isn't inherently of lexical interest, any more than a slap in the face could be interpreted as sign language for "I hate you!". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Although I'm also leaning towards Delete, I must play devil's advocate against your objection to treating ritual speech actions and idioms as language of no 'lexical interest'. Since when are words spoken in observing a ritual not words? You may sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!" when you really feel that he's a jolly bad bastard, or "Happy Birthday to You" when you'd rather the birthday person choked on their birthday cake! Surely the meaning of these set, ritual phrases goes beyond the mere Sum of their Parts? You said as much; they "have very specific usage and connotations" (connotation being one half of meaning, denotation the other), and as such, surely these are the kinds of things a language learner needs to know in order to use the language effectively. Thank you, Chuck Entz, you've almost made me convince myself I was wrong to want this phrase deleted! ;-) No, not really; the phrase in question is just a silly, punning line (and title) from an old song that I bet none of us knows the tune to, and I doubt that it's achieved even minor cultic significance among icecream eaters; certainly not among the devotees in my family, such as my wife who often single-handedly ate a large tub of icecream on her own - on a winter's evening! Yes, please delete this phrase. yoyo (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not of you, but of your entry- try not to take it personally. Having sat through a number of midnight showings of the w:The Rocky Horror Picture Show some years ago, I can verify that people in the audience would yell "that man has no neck" at a certain very specific point in the movie. The fact that they didn't yell anything else at that point, and that they only yelled it at that particular time and place are evidence of a tradition among Rocky Horror fans, not of the phrase being idiomatic. There are all kinds of little rituals and practices, from singing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!" or "Happy Birthday to You" to liturgical utterances such as "I now pronounce you man and wife", to various celebrity impressions, and the list goes on and on. These are speech actions that tend to have very specific usage and connotations, but their content isn't inherently of lexical interest, any more than a slap in the face could be interpreted as sign language for "I hate you!". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Angr and Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted: I see broad consensus that the term is not idiomatic. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)