Talk:back in day

Oh really?

Not come across, this, I suppose there the Yorkshire version back in t'day where t' means the. Never heard of this, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From RFV

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

back in day

Supposed UK form. Never heard of it; neither has Mglovesfun; can't find it in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say something about back in t'day with a glottal stop but I already have on Talk:back in day. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard it used (here in the UK) without the article, though this is sometimes expressed as a voiceless alveolar stop that almost merges with the voiced one, possibly causing someone to believe that the expression exists. Dbfirs 09:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have cited this to back in't day and suggest the entry is moved there. SpinningSpark 19:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. However, that kind of dialect (Yorkshire etc.) can replace the with t' in practically any phrase, so the entry does not seem necessary to me. Equinox ◑ 19:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh, it seems as necessary or unnecessary as [[back in the day]]. That is, if we have [[back in the day]], we might as well have [[back in't day]] as "{{context|Yorkshire}} {{alternative form of|back in the day}}" or similar. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you don't think "back in the day" merits an entry of itself? (I do, since "back in the hour, week, etc." aren't used, and neither is "in the day" without "back".) What I was trying to say is that we have lots of entries with the in the title, and presumably don't want Yorkshire versions of all of them (assuming attestability), just as with 'n' for and. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have Yorkshire "t'" variants of random unidiomatic phrases that contain "the". But I presume we should allow attested Yorkshire spellings of phrases that are idiomatic (and I agree "back in the day" is idiomatic), because don't see how the Yorkshire spellings could be less idiomatic than the standard UK/US spellings. After all, we have eatin' like a bird. (But then, see Talk:eatin' for two#RFD...) - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Equinox If you wanted it deleted why didn't you put it in at requests for deletion? You requested cites and I cited it so what's your complaint? If you now go and get it deleted you have entirely wasted my time in going to the effort to find and format the citations. SpinningSpark 23:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it can be cited as it stands as well, SpinningSpark 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Back in day this was the weekly game
• Mainly because back in day he had what he would suppose was a little crush on the supermodel.
• Tattooing was all the rage back in day. You know.
• That's what it is, dog; the same from back in day when yo ass was freebasing
• From the commencement, back in day of small beginnings, to the hour of their greatest success

You have cited "back in day" so that's fine. Problem solved. But you originally cited "back in t' day", and in that respect, I just think it's dumb to have (say) come 'n' go, push t' boat out, and goin' out when we already have come and go, push the boat out, and going out; all three of the first (non-standard) forms are trivially obtainable from the second (standard) forms, and only by changing one word. Why should the ability to change one word make us include copies of every phrase containing the word? Equinox ◑ 01:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary rules baffle me sometimes. Why do we have a separate entry for every alternative spelling of a word, and why is a phrase different? SpinningSpark 18:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the context/register of "back in day"? Is it also a Yorkshire form? Nothing in the quotations above jumps out at me and suggests that. Is it just nonstandard? - -sche (discuss) 15:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The form without the article, or equivalent stop, seems to be more American than Yorkshire. I would regard it as non-standard, but I don't know which culture it comes from. Dbfirs 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on the quotations, I seems to be specifically AAVE, rather than American in general. --WikiTiki89 18:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing myself, that might fit for all but the last cite. The form used in [1] might be significant, it results in this form if one of the repeated days is dropped. SpinningSpark 18:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That could very well be it's origin, but that in itself is not enough evidence. As for the last cite, it could just be a typo. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the last cite might be a typo. It's written in good American English. Google search tells me that there are 13 other places where "back in the day" is used in the book, but I don't believe it because it won't show me. Dbfirs 19:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've recontextualised the entry as "chiefly AAVE, nonstandard" (because even in AAVE, it doesn't seem to be the usual form) and de-tagged it. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)