Talk:bald

RFV discussion: September 2016–May 2017

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

---

bald

"Of a statement: empirically unsupported." I have just added and cited another sense ("Of a statement or account: unembellished") and I wonder if this was a confused attempt at that. Or does it exist independently? Equinox ◑ 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition could be revised a bit (to be more like "without evidence or support being provided"), but I think it exists: google books:"bald assertion", google books:"bald claim".

• 2006, Alastair Fowler, How to Write, page 49:

  Many continue with bald assertion after bald assertion; which is unlikely to convince people, unless they agree with you already.

- -sche (discuss) 17:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made the proposed revision, and added some citations. With the revision, however, that second definition looks a lot like a subset of the first. Kiwima (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; but why is the "bald assertion" in the 1994 citation sense 3 and not sense 4? Equinox ◑ 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like that citation blends both senses, or could be either (and is not definitively not one or the other). Perhaps it is best moved to the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with the "without support" sense than the "without embellishment" sense. The senses seem to be separate, though; e.g. a xenophobic rant that immigrants are more likely to commit theft and rape and assault, going into lurid/scary detail, seems like it could be "bald" in sense 2 (without evidence being provided), not sense 1 (lacking embellishment). But if you think it's better as a subsense, OK. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• RFV passed. It can still be made into a subsense if anyone feels the need to do so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

The English etymology seems unable to decide on whether the word is from PIE *bʰelH- (“to gleam/shine, be bright/white”) or from *bʰel(n)- (“to swell, inflate; bulge, ball”)! (No, they are not the same root by any means.) If hypotheses conflict, either delete the uncertain information and move it to an ancestor, and detail the hypotheses there; or, as I prefer, just list and clearly distinguish both hypotheses on this page. Otherwise, if anyone is aware of which hypothesis is considered to be the stronger or prevalent one, please note that and remove the irrelevant, conflicting information. If no one responds to this within the next couple of days I'll try to do it myself.  — J​as​p​e​t 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)