Talk:aw hell no

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.svg

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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


aw hell no[edit]

Sum of parts, but if kept should be at aw, hell no. --Connel MacKenzie 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

From Gbooks, it appears that these two forms are at roughly similar frequencies, right alongside aw, hell, no, so it would seem best to have all of these, at least as redirects. Also, I'm puzzled at the relationship between this RFD and the two just above -- commas are OK, but question marks aren't? -- Visviva 13:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a technical thing; question marks have a specific meaning in an HTTP URI (they indicate the start of a query string, and hence the end of the path part), while commas do not. —RuakhTALK 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
More than a technical thing: we define words and phrases; we don't define sentences (ahem, rather, we try not to.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I find it a little difficult to see this as a sentence, inasmuch as it lacks most of the normal properties thereof, viz. subject, object, verb, topic, etc. And this phrase does have some interesting uses as a speech act (expressing some mixture of horror and disbelief), though that's not included in the current entry. -- Visviva 11:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"I guess I find it a little difficult to see this as a sentence" <-- I think that was the point. Commas do not indicate sentences like periods and question marks do, so they are acceptable. Dmcdevit·t 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a big deal; we have aw, and hell no, it was deleted out of hand by Jeff (SemperBlotto) and restored by Connel; the issue at hand is whether the combined phrase is worth keeping. I have no problem with keeping it; but it doesn't seem needed. Robert Ullmann 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)