Talk:bog in

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.

---

Gives two defs, the first (start eating) I can't find any uses of at all. The second does not look like a phrasal verb to me. I found plenty of uses of bogged as an adjective, and when someone is bogged in a place, we say he's bogged in that place. (often bogged in mud). WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

keep first def. Very common in AusE (? and NZE). I have added a citation to the entry. However, delete second def., not a phrasal verb as WurdSnatcher notes.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't actually add a cite to the first def. Not that I don't believe you, just pointing out you forgot to hit save. It sounds like something an Aussie might say (they'd say it drunkenly, obviously, but that still counts). WurdSnatcher (talk)

It is in the "citations" tag.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, btw, drinking to excess not needed to use this expression - merely colloquial.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see, weird, the cite tab is still a red link for me even though it's existed for like sixteen hours now. Thanks! I've switched this to be just a nom for the second sense. WurdSnatcher (talk)

The second sense looks like a shortened version of "bogged down". P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the last definition seems out of place. I have added the extra definition. I don't (yet) know how to add a citation. However, the first sense of the expression is in a common form of disrespectful preprandial grace in my native land of Australia: "Two, four, six eight. Bog in, don't wait". (Is this the right way to do this?) Skelta

Have added a citation each for both AusE senses (you can see how it is done Skelta).--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank Sonofcawdrey for the instruction. I noticed that what you have added are quotations, and that there is a quotation in the citation tab of the "bog in" entry. Should the quotation be taken out of the citation tab and a citation to the Australian Macquarie Dictionary be added to the citation tab? Skelta

The terms citation and quotation are essentially synonymous in this context. A reference refers to a citing of some authority such as the Macquarie Dictionary, or other book on language. But there is no need to add any references to secondary sources unless the information in the secondary source adds something that the citations do not have (i.e. maybe some info about the etymology, or when the term was first introduced, etc.). In this case, seems to be no need for a reference. Citations in the "citation tab" appear to be used for 'extra' citations as we generally don't want too many attached to the def. itself because it clutters up the page - but also the "citation tab" can store citations that back up certain usage notes, show early attestations, give an indication to etymology, etc. At least that's as far as I can gather.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is now the third sense should be an embarrassment to our pretensions to being a real dictionary. In "bogged in mud", in is a preposition of which mud is the object forming an adverbial prepositional phrase. I don't see how anyone with the least awareness of grammar could claim that sense to be an instance of a phrasal verb. If one doesn't have a sufficient awareness of grammar to detect such a thing, one has no business editing entries for multi-word expressions. There is no particular difference between the uses of bog in "bogged in mud" and in "even the lightest vehicles are bogged over their axles." "Over their axles" is clearly an adverbial, just as "in he mud" is. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • You could have made this point a month ago. Perhaps you would have persuaded some other editors, and reached a consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Too late for this one, but perhaps some other contributors could consider the effect of allowing silly definitions and entries to be incldued. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I've found an added a cite for a truly phrasal-verb usage of this meaning. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I've added two more and I think it's cited. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As cited it looks good. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I still wonder whether seemingly attestable combinations such as bog up/bogged up, bog over/bogged over, bog under/bogged under all with about the same meaning as bog in bog down don't suggest that bog is simply occurring in free combinations with several individual adverb/particles as well as with prepositional phrases. DCDuring TALK 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)