Talk:diamond ring

Deletion discussion

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.

---

diamond ring

I'm looking forward to reading why this isn't diamond + ring. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See w:Baily's beads. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm amazed! --Hekaheka (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty, don't you think? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(after e/c) I seem to remember this passing RFD before. But I would vote delete. --WikiTiki89 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, re the more literal sense that's actually in the entry, I suppose it could be argued that the whole ring isn't made of diamond (cf. gold ring), just the stone that's set in it. That perhaps makes it weakly idiomatic, but not enough for me to vote for it to be kept. I would only say that the solar-ecliptic sense should have an entry, and that the current sense should perhaps therefore be retained with {{&lit}}. Maybe. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

raspberry ice cream is not made entirely of raspberries. --WikiTiki89 05:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Kept for the sake of the solar-ecliptic sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• “diamond ring”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. would not have saved us any time unless we included the single technical glossary that has the astronomy sense. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Convert to &lit. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree: convert to &lit, bearing in mind Wikitiki's point above about raspberry ice-cream. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Convert the "ring with a diamond" sense to {{&lit}}, per Wikitiki's point about raspberry ice cream. I would add that, likewise, something like a yellow car does not have to be entirely yellow; it likely has a transparent colourless windscreen rather than an opaque yellow windscreen, for instance, and probably also has an unyellow muffler, tyres, etc. A Google Image search for "yellow car" bears out this hypothesis. For that matter, even a gold ring can bear a jewel and still be referred to as a "gold ring". - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Convert sense 1 to {{&lit|diamond|ring}} per Ungoliant, Equinox, and -sche, in accordance with Wikitiki's point. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that this is &lit. THIS is a literal diamond ring. What we conventionally think of as a "diamond" ring is actually a metal ring (or, possibly, wood) with a diamond setting. bd2412 T 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at with "I suppose it could be argued that the whole ring isn't made of diamond (cf. gold ring), just the stone that's set in it. That perhaps makes it weakly idiomatic". It's not the strongest of arguments, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

“X Y” does not always mean “Y made of X”. In this case, it is used as “Y whose distinguishing feature is the presence of X”. If we limit ourselves to only considering the “Y made of X” usage, we will have to add the name of every piece of jewellery containing a gem, every name of a dish or juice containing an ingredient (i.e. tomato soup may contain water and spices; lemon juice may contain sugar), every name of a structure containing the material it is made of (i.e. a brick house also has mortar), etc. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. This an example of the kind of common rule of semantic construction that gives instances of its application the same non-lexical status as grammatically correct SoP phrases. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, diamond ring is an unusual construction. How often have you ever heard of someone referring to a "pearl ring" or a "ruby ring"? Furthermore, there are implications inherent in the diamond ring that go far beyond a diamond ring, such that its significance as an engagement ring is generally understood without any further clarification. bd2412 T 18:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am certain I have encountered ruby ring before, though I don’t recall any specific instance of seeing pearl ring. google books:"ruby ring" and google books:"pearl ring" have 39100 and 11700 hits on Google Books respectively, so I wouldn’t call <gem> ring an unusual construction. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have most certainly heard "ruby ring" and although I haven't heard of "pearl rings", that construction is readily understood (and Google shows plenty results for it). I have heard of "pearl earrings". The cultural significance of diamond rings is not part of the definition of a diamond ring. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both of those. I've also heard "turquoise ring", "carnelian ring", and very many others. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) re "diamond ring is an unusual construction": no, it isn't; it's barely 10x more common than ruby ring (or emerald ring or sapphire ring or pearl ring), with much of that ascribable to the fact that "diamond" in isolation is already 5x more common than ruby, etc, and the rest influenced by the fact that the physical jewels themselves have different levels of popularity.
Re "there are implications inherent in the diamond ring": as I commented on another recent RFD, there are implications to "black car" (e.g. it's often shiny and classy rather than shabby, and it's typical for government officials to be driven in black cars), but it's still just a black car. Tellingly, the relative commonness of black car vs blue car vs black vs blue (note the different timeframe; cars haven't been around as long as rings) is similar to that of diamond ring vs ruby ring vs diamond vs ruby. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Diamond ring is an unusual construction as against things like "gold ring", "silver ring", "iron ring", "wood ring", "plastic ring", "platinum ring", "obsidian ring", and others which do convey that the ring is made of the material, not made of some other material but with a bit of gold or iron or wood set in it. bd2412 T 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you need a better argument. There are also things called "emerald ring", "pearl ring", "sapphire ring", "opal ring" etc. and none of those are made of the materials mentioned. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So? It's not unusual when compared to the other kinds of ring mentioned above (ruby ring, etc). "Government truck" is unusual when compared to "Chevy truck", "Ford truck", "Opel truck" and other collocations which convey that the truck is manufactured by the specified entity rather than being owned/operated by it. But then you realize that there are "company trucks" and "private trucks" and... - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it seems we need another line for the sense of "a ring made entirely of diamond", since the &lit sense is occupied by rings not entirely made of diamond. I am curious as to whether this is the norm in other languages - is it the typical case that a ring set with a bauble of a certain material is referred to as a "foo-material ring", irrespective of the material from which the band is made? Are there languages where "diamond ring" (a ring set with a diamond) would have a different translation from "diamond ring" (a ring made of diamond)? bd2412 T 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The beauty of SOP is that we don't need to list every possible meaning that diamond + ring can have. Any way that a ring can be diamond is an SOP definition of "diamond ring". --WikiTiki89 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For instance, a criminal organization that smuggles diamonds, or that's associated with baseball fields, or diamonds arranged in a circle, or... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Re "it seems we need another line for the sense of 'a ring made entirely of diamond', since the &lit sense is occupied by rings not entirely made of diamond": how do you figure? Perusing the first few dozen pages that use {{&lit}}, I don't notice any of them using multiple sense-lines when there are multiple literal meanings. Ask for it, for example, has numerous literal uses but only one &lit line:
A: "Hey! how come you got a pickle on your burger and I didn't?" / B: "I asked for it."
C: "Where's the foobarium?" / D: "Who wants to know?" / C: "The android." / D: "Why doesn't it ask me itself?" / C: "I asked for it."
And Chuck explains the many possible literal senses of diamond ring Brillantly, if you'll excuse the bilingual pun... :D - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there languages where "diamond ring" (a ring set with a diamond) would have a different translation from "diamond ring" (a ring made of diamond)? bd2412 T 01:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are possibly languages with distinct terms for (rings|earrings|necklaces|lockets|brooches|cufflinks|buttons) made entirely of (gold|silver|diamond|ruby|sapphire|pearl|emerald) vs ones which are merely set with such things. (BTW, every combination of those two sets I just mentioned is attested.) In particular, languages which use periphrastic constructions rather than compounds might make a distinction. However, the ones I've checked so far don't, either because they construct both "ring made of X" and "ring set with X" as "ring of X", or because they normally express "ring made of X" as "X^[adj] ring" but lack an adjective for "diamond" and thus express both "ring made of diamond" and "ring set with diamond" as "ring of diamond". (Rings made of diamond are so rare that in many languages there's simply no literature online that mentions them.)
Of course, the fact that some languages have different terms for conceptually different things does not mean other languages must have different senses for them. Russian has completely different terms for the colour of the deep sea and the colour of the clear sky, yet blue records that English merges the two conceptually different things into one sense, "the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and violet in the visible spectrum". (And true blue merges all possible 'true' shades of 'blue' into one &lit sense.) - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, which sense of ring would inform a reader that a diamond ring is not a ring made of diamond? Surely it can't be sense three, "A round piece of (precious) metal worn around the finger or through the ear, nose, etc.", because that gives no suggestion that a "diamond" ring would not be a ring made of diamond. How can a phrase be SOP when there is no sense within either parts from which the meaning as a whole can be discerned. bd2412 T 01:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The same is true of many other compounds of "<stone> <article of jewelry>", e.g. "diamond necklace", "pearl earring", "sapphire {nose ring}", "{pearl and garnet} anklet", "diamond {{wedding or engagement} ring}", "ruby tiara", "{natural emerald} {engagement ring}", and so on. I'd be down with explaining this at entries for "<article of jewelry>", but it's clear that this is a productive compound-formation principle in English, so I don't think don't think it makes sense to try to give an entry for each compound. So, I'd ask: is 'diamond ring' is special in such a way that justifies an exceptional entry? —Ruakh_TALK 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think the issue here boils down to the fact that "diamond ring" is effectively a synonym for engagement ring, per citations like the following:

• 1985, Arthur Colton Park, A History of the Park and Colton Families: Six Generations 1810-1985, p. 29:

  It was at that apartment one evening in May that I gave her the diamond ring that would formalize the engagement which had become inevitable in the minds of all, including us.

• 1987, Nell McCafferty, Goodnight Sisters: Selected Articles of Nell McCafferty, p. 87:

  A diamond ring means marriage and status.

• 2000, Gerard E. Smith, Journey of an Ordinary Man, p. 471:

  “I thought we could get married this summer,” he answered, and with that he took the small box he had been carrying for a week from his jacket pocket. Her smile broadened as he opened the box and gave her the diamond ring.

• 2003, Douglas K. Thompson, A Refuge from the Storm p. 153:

  Valentine's Day was always a special day for us. Ann's was so thrilled when I gave her the diamond ring on that day in 1956. It was a day we had always celebrated as the real start of our life together. We went out to dinner that evening, and set the date for our marriage.

• 2006, Mary Slonaker, The Vinton House, p. 37:

  “Delvin, a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married. I barely know you.”

• 2007, Ricki Pepin, God's Health Plan - the Audacious Journey to a Better Life, p. 33:

  In 1999, when my daughter became engaged to be married, memories flooded back to me as she excitedly showed us her beautiful, shimmering diamond ring.

• 2008, Sandy Denton, Let's Talk About Pep, p. 88:

  I opened the box and saw this beautiful ring that I thought meant what a diamond ring means—that we were engaged.

In each of those cases, "engagement ring" could be substituted for "diamond ring", but in at least some of them, no other kind of ring could be substituted. It has an additional significance beyond the mere material components, like a gold medal. bd2412 T 03:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It is common in certain cultures to formalize engagements with rings, and it is common in some of those cultures for engagement rings to be diamond rings, but it is not required, and it is not lexicographically significant. (It is ethnographically significant, but Wiktionary is not an ethnography.)

• In the 1985 citation, a pair's engagement is being formalized with a ring, and the ring happens to be diamond, but it could as well be ruby or pearl. Even "I gave her the black cow that would formalize the engagement" works, although the background knowledge you have of which cultures give rings as symbols of engagement vs which ones give cows may change your mental picture of the pair's cultural background to much the same extent that "she rode to the wedding in a horse-drawn carriage" vs "she rode to the wedding in a rusty Trabant" would change your mental image of the pair's affluence. Likewise, in the 2006 and 2008 citations, the setting of the scene in a particular culture is what causes the characters to interpret the ring set with a diamond as a sign of engagement; the signification attaches to the physical object in the particular cultural context, it is not inherent the words; compare the 1982, 1993 and Shadow of Antiquity citations I present below, and my comments elsewhere on this page about "black car" and "pink ribbon".
• The 1987 is the equivalent of "a Ford truck means strength and toughness" or "a gray tie means you're old" (the latter a quotation from Stories in Short, →ISBN.
• As in the 1985 citation, the "diamond ring" in the 2000 citation could be replaced with a "ruby ring" or a "silver necklace" — though not a "cow", since cows don't fit in jacket pockets. The 2000 citation also notes that the same cultures which commonly give rings as symbols of engagement give the rings in boxes while kneeling; should we find some lemma (*diamond ring box?) to house this information on? Ditto the 2007 citation. And ditto the 2003 citation; compare the Muscadines and Daffodils citation below.

Here are some "counter-citations": - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

things other than diamond rings as symbols of engagement

• 1982, Dianne M. Eash, Proceedings: International Gemological Symposium, 1982, page 172:

  Young women would receive a natural pearl ring as a symbol of their engagement and later they would be given a necklace made of natural pearls.

• 1993, Edward F. Anderson, Plants and People of the Golden Triangle: Ethnobotany:

  A Karen couple may exchange tobacco pipes to symbolize their engagement, […]

• 2010, Karen Jamison, Heart of A Hero →ISBN, page 45;

  He had actually gone there two days before to look at engagement rings. […] He stuck his hand into the front pocket of his jeans and pulled out a little, gray, velvet box. He opened it and revealed a diamond and ruby ring.

• 2011, Jessica Steele, Unexpected Engagement →ISBN:

  "You are formally engaged to be married, señorita?" he had enquired. "Down to the ring," Todd had replied for her, raising her left hand to show the ruby ring on her third finger.

• 2011, Katherine Mansfield and Literary Modernism →ISBN, page 170:

  Murry […] gave her Mansfield's pearl ring to symbolize their engagement.

• 2012, Gregory S Aldrete, ‎Alicia Aldrete, The Long Shadow of Antiquity →ISBN:

  The first aspect of Roman marriage rituals that would seem wholly familiar today is that, as a symbol of their engagement, the man (or boy) placed an engagement ring made of iron on the third finger of the woman's (or girl's) left hand, […]

• 2012, Judy Renick, Muscadines and Daffodils: A Daily Devotional →ISBN:

  When Angela's father proposed to her mother, the engagement ring was a beautiful ruby. From that day forward, a ruby ring had significance in the family.

diamond rings as symbols of things other than engagements

• 1975, Harness Horse, volume 40, issues 29-36, page 74:

  Immediately after his 2,000th win, Lachance was presented with a diamond ring to commemorate the feat by Blue Bonnets senior vice-president Michael MacCormac.

• 1975, Edwyn Gray, The Devil's Device: The Story of Robert Whitehead, Inventor, page 63:

  And recognition of his engineering skill did not end there for, some weeks later, he was personally thanked by the Emperor Francis Josef and given an enamel and diamond ring to commemorate the occasion.

• 2004, Karl Bodmer's North American prints →ISBN, page 21:

  Catlin's visit, no doubt, caused Louis Philippe to recall Bodmer's visit and the quality of his engravings, and he sent Bodmer a warm letter and a monogrammed diamond ring to commemorate the occasion.

• 2006, William E. Akin, West Virginia Baseball: A History, 1865-2000 →ISBN, page 85;

  After recognizing all the players, Pennywitt presented manager Buzz Wetzel with a diamond ring to commemorate the pennant.

miscellaneous

• 2008, Robert Vare, The American Idea: The Best of the Atlantic Monthly →ISBN, page 406:

  In Europe, where diamond prices had collapsed during the Depression, there seemed little possibility of restoring public confidence in diamonds. In Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, the notion of giving a diamond ring to commemorate an engagement had never taken hold. In England and France, diamonds were still presumed to be jewels for aristocrats rather than the masses.

• 2003?, Encyclopedia of Superstitions, Folklore, and the Occult →ISBN?):

  A popular stone for the engagement ring is the ruby, especially for the girl born in July. […] In Madagascar, when a lover is going abroad, he is given a ruby ring by his sweetheart; and if the lustre grows dim, he believes it is a sign that she is dead or false.

  does this make ruby ring idiomatic with a meaning like "a ring set with a ruby, used to determine if an absent partner is faithful/alive"?

- -sche (discuss) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are not really "counter" citations so much as they are citations that describe regional and historical restrictions. The first one, looking at the entire article, specifically says that pearls were a symbol of engagement "[u]ntil 1929". Many of the other citations to rings other than diamond rings relate to non-English speaking countries or cultures, which merely tells us that this is a regionalism, which of course we include (see apples and pears, beauty parlor). The fact that someone can give someone else a diamond ring to signify something other than engagement is no more significant than the fact that someone can give someone else a gold medal to signify something other than winning a competition (I don't think a slew of cites like The Indian Review: A Monthly Journal (1913), Volume 13, p. 480: "So pleased were they with Rama Murti's strength that they gave him a gold medal as a token of their appreciation" would justify removing the existing sense). By the way, I noticed that in examining my citations, you didn't take issue with the 2006 citation that specifically says, "a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married". What your citations indicate, then, is that "diamond ring" is a regionalism as a synonym for "engagement ring", in the later 20th century United States. bd2412 T 16:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So if, in late 20th century US, you gave your fiancée an engagement ring with a ruby, it is accurate to claim you gave her a diamond ring? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No more so than if you had a competition, and gave the winner a silver medal, and the second-place competitor a gold medal. bd2412 T 16:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So merely a culturally inappropriate act and not something of lexicographic relevance? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have provided citations in print above stating "A diamond ring means marriage and status"; "a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married"; and "I opened the box and saw this beautiful ring that I thought meant what a diamond ring means—that we were engaged". Provide some citations addressing the relevant region and time period that a "ruby ring" or a "pearl ring" or the like "means marriage" or "means you are engaged", and you will have demonstrated the absence of the congruity which makes this a synonym for its time and place. This is no different than proposing that any number of citations stating that "a silver medal means first place" would call into question the congruity between gold medal and grand prize. Obviously, not all first prizes are made of gold, or are medals, but the existence of the blue ribbon doesn't lead us to exclude the attested meaning of gold medal. Likewise, the use of other stones for engagement rings does not detract from the lexical value of a phrase like, "her boyfriend finally gave her the diamond ring", which communicates the meaning, engagement ring (note that the 1985, 2000, and 2003 cites above refer to "the" diamond ring, not "a" diamond ring, expressing an understanding of the additional meaning conveyed by it being a diamond ring). bd2412 T 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your citations aren’t using mean in the lexicographic sense. They are using it in the same way as “punching your boss in the face means you’re fired”.

“Elvis gave his daughter a diamond ring and mink coat on her eighth birthday, [… ]”, “The last time we were in Hawaii in the same hotel, I had been impressed to give a diamond ring to someone the morning we were getting ready to come home.”, “Gemstone intentionally offers to give a diamond ring to Bennett, a trial court judge, in order to influence her decision in a case that is to be tried before her.”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometime after 1936, Jesse Owens "gave one of his four Olympic gold medals to dancer and movie star Bill "Bojangles" Robinson"[1]. In 1960, the King of Siam visited the Vatican, and "the Pope gave the king a gold medal" as a sign of friendship.[2] The fact that someone can literally give someone else a "gold medal" or a "red ribbon" or a "diamond ring" does not detract from the fact that each is understood to symbolize a particular thing in a particular context; neither does the fact that a first place winner can receive something other than a medal made of gold, and an engaged woman can be given a ring with a stone other than a diamond. How is "diamond ring" in this context and different from "gold medal"? By this reasoning, shouldn't we delete "gold medal", since not all first place prizes are medals made of gold, and not all medals made of gold are given as first place prizes? bd2412 T 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because "gold medal" can be used figuratively in cases where no actual medal is involved. For example, "John got a the gold medal for his impressive performance" does not need to involve any actual gold medal, but simply the achievement of first place. However, "John gave Sarah a diamond ring and they lived happily ever after" necessarily does imply that an actual physical ring with a diamond on it was given to Sarah. --WikiTiki89 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That is nothing more than the distinction between the existing sense 1 of gold medal (an actual medal made of gold awarded as a prize), and sense 2 (the figurative prize). Should sense 1 be deleted, since it refers to an actual medal made of gold? Further to your objection, here are some figurative use, 2006, Nicole Beland, "Babes in Boyland", in Report 2006 a Man's Guide to Women, p. 51: "I'm not the kind of girl who lives her life waiting for a man to give her a diamond ring"; 2009, Bess Vanrenen, Generation What?: Dispatches from the Quarter-Life Crisis, p. 289: "While I was tapping my foot waiting for a diamond ring, my personality became uglier by the day". In the first example, no actual ring is involved; the author is merely saying that she's not waiting around for a man to ask her to marry him. In the second, again, no actual ring is involved, the author is merely impatient that her boyfriend has not proposed to her. I have added these, and others like them, to Citations:diamond ring. bd2412 T 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, I think the first sense of gold medal should be replaced with {{&lit}} (and the second one should be reworded a bit). 2. In your quotes, no diamond ring is involved because no engagement is involved. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite no actual engagement being involved, these authors are using the phrase "diamond ring" to mean "engagement". bd2412 T 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But it's not. It's being used to symbolize engagement. If without using any words, a man gives a woman a gold ring with a diamond on it, that already symbolizes engagement without the need for the literal words "diamond ring". This shows that the symbolism has nothing to do with meaning of the words. --WikiTiki89 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, "gold medal" is not found in MWOnline or my print edition of MW3rd. I have long considered Merriam Webster the most principled of dictionaries, especially with respect to idioms, though I wouldn't claim its overall superiority to the OED.

Although several dictionaries have gold medal as an entry, of the 4 references that appear at “diamond ring”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., Wordnik has no actual definition, Urban Dictionary has an alternative "cultural" definition, WP has only a disambiguation page, and Zoom Astronomy Glossary has the lunar phenomenon. As to the cultural meaningfulness, WP's dab page has links several articles about songs with diamond ring in the title, though we have not resorted to such evidence previously.

I rather doubt that there is a bright sharp line that distinguishes between lexicographic meaning and meaning that is more "cultural". In any event, BD's skilled argument in the alternative deserves high marks and make him a credit to his profession. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@WikiTiki, if without using any words, a man places a gold medal around another man's neck, or pins a blue ribbon to his pumpkin, would that show that the symbolism has nothing to do with the meaning of gold medal and blue ribbon?

@DCDuring, I am actually making a compound argument, with complementary points uniting in a graceful ballet. I don't propose, for example, that we should have "emerald ring" or "sapphire ring", even though neither is likely to be a "ring" of the material at issue, because they have no meaning beyond that. On the other hand, efforts to draw a sharp line between "cultural" meaning and "lexicographic" meaning are pointless. There is nothing about the color blue that makes a blue ribbon inherently symbolic of winning first place. There are plenty of other tokens given as first place prizes, having other colors, and there are plenty of instances where ribbons that are blue are used for purposes other than awarding prizes, but for reasons relying entirely on cultural context, a "blue ribbon" is a first prize, a second banana is a supporting role, and a diamond ring given by a man to his girlfriend is an engagement ring. I also think that we should have entries for soup spoon and salad fork (distinguishing them from conventional utensils), and yellow ribbon (signifying support for soldiers), which I consider to be in the same class. bd2412 T 19:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That there isn't a sharp bright line distinguishing cultural and lexicographic meaning doesn't mean that a dictionary can't choose which definitions to include and which to exclude. Not everything called a "meaning" is dictionary material. I see no evidence that other dictionaries have chosen to include your client. In contrast “engagement ring”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds several and MW3 (print) has it as well. A possible difference is that diamond ring is not:

1. the only kind of ring used as an engagement ring in post-1500 European cultures
2. only used as an engagement ring and for no other event or purpose in post-1500 European cultures
3. as likely to be used as an engagement ring at all socio-economic levels in post-1500 European cultures
4. a cross-cultural symbol.

As a modern historical dictionary, I would think we would be obliged to cover the symbols used in many cultures over recorded history. Literary allusions would seem to belong as well. To simply correctly provide scope and register of the "engagement" definition seems a research project worthy of a thesis.

I suppose that as long as we have taken leave of any practical considerations whatsoever, in principle we should include any attestable cultural and subcultural meaning of anything at any time. Is that the direction we wish to go? DCDuring TALK 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is something we already do, whenever we include something like Cockney rhyming slang or New England regionalisms and Southern U.S. regionalisms. As for the research, that has already been done. There are plenty of articles in reliable sources explaining how and when the diamond ring came to symbolize engagement, so we don't need to reinvent that wheel. One interesting thing that -sche noted above is that up until the Great Depression, pearls were the engagement ring stone of choice. However, in one of the citations I provided, the author (writing in 2006) tells a story set in 1912 where a woman specifically responds to an offer of a diamond ring by saying that it means they would be engaged. As it turns out, this is somewhat of an anachronism; it didn't have that meaning then with the degree that it has it today, having picked it up sometime in the 1930s. It is just a bit less out of place than a story set among Native Americans a thousand years ago where one gives another a diamond ring to signify engagement (or indeed, where one gives another a blue ribbon to signify winning a contest). bd2412 T 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re DCDuring's edit summary, which linked to it:   [[engagement ring]] exists? Sigh. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only does engagement ring exist, but it exists in many languages, some of which have it as a single word. bd2412 T 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep "A finger ring on which is mounted a diamond, often a symbol of engagement or marriage" rather than lit, since the "often a symbol of engagement or marriage" part is significant for understanding many a sentence that use "diamond ring", and the part cannot be obtained by looking at "diamond" and "ring". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Now that you mention it, I think we should add a note to "ring" saying that rings are often a symbol of marriage or engagement. --WikiTiki89 07:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  If only there were some kind of online editable linkable resource that we could refer users to for voluminous encyclopedic information, so we could focus more on language. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Keep on dreaming... If such a resource existed, they should have been linking to us more often. --WikiTiki89 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are two more citations which, I think, seal the deal in establishing idiomatic meaning with respect to engagement:

• 2010, Mark Joyner, The Irresistible Offer: How to Sell Your Product or Service in 3 Seconds or Less:

  For example, it may go without saying that most women in America want a diamond ring from the man asking their hand in marriage. Heck, it may have even crossed over into a need at this point, since not having one will require some explaining, but you see what I mean.

This indicates that whatever other gifts may symbolize engagement, a diamond ring is the expected token.

• 2008, Dave Parker, Big Is Beautiful, p. 24:

  Don't put out until you are man and wife.
  Shacking up will lead to misery and strife.
  Even if you get that diamond ring,
  If he really loves you he'll control his thing.

Here, "get that diamond ring" is clearly used to mean "get engaged" in contrast with shacking up. Perhaps we need an entry for "get the diamond ring", meaning to get engaged, since that is clearly understood to be the meaning, even if no actual diamond ring is involved. bd2412 T 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it seals the deal at all, considering the discussion we're having at WT:RFV#thyme. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  This is exactly the opposite of thyme, which has only ever been presented as meaning "virginity" through abstract metaphor. Here we have evidence that an actual, physical diamond ring came to signal engagement to be married, and that, by extension of that practice, being engaged is metaphorically "getting a diamond ring" even if no actual "diamond ring" is involved. This, therefore, is more like brass ring, which derives from an actual ring of brass that was a token of success, but has come to mean the success itself; here, diamond rather than brass means engagement to be married rather then some other kind of success. bd2412 T 14:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  One difference between diamond rings and brass rings is that an actual ring of brass is no longer a token of success. Thus "brass ring" must be idiomatic, but "diamond ring" doesn't need to be in order to explain all of the above. For thyme as well, it is the thyme itself that is the metaphor, not the word "thyme". --WikiTiki89 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that the "actual ring of brass" still exists as a carnival prize, which is where the term originated. Moreover, there are actual citations in print which use both "brass ring" and "diamond ring" in the same idiomatic context:

• 2012, Catherine Mann, Code of Honor:

  She loved him? She said she did, and he had no reason to doubt her. Be happy, grab the brass ring—or rather a diamond ring. So why was he choking when it came to answering back?

• 2013, Jennifer Keishin Armstrong, ‎Heather Wood Rudúlph, Sexy Feminism: A Girl's Guide to Love, Success, and Style, p. xvi:

  I thought that was what you did to get the brass ring — or, more specifically, the diamond ring — of marriage.

  The second one in particular makes it clear that "diamond ring" is to marriage (as one kind of success) exactly what "brass ring" is to success generally. bd2412 T 14:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun, Astronomers find 'diamond engagement ring' in space. I can't imagine who they think is getting engaged - a couple of galaxies, maybe? bd2412 T 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It’s just a pun. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a pun, but puns rely on the meanings of words. By the way, in case it comes up, the instances of "diamond ring" relating to engagement or a marriage proposal outnumber the instances of the phrase "diamond engagement ring". bd2412 T 18:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• In order to resolve this issue, I would like to propose the addition of a subsense of the &lit definition, as follows:

1. Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see diamond,‎ ring.
   • 1907, Recreation, National Recreation Association, page 545:

     If that mocking bird don’t^[sic] sing // Daddy’s going to buy me a diamond ring. // If that diamond ring don’t^[sic] shine // Daddy’s going to buy me a bottle of wine.

   1. By extension, a woman's engagement ring.
      • 1923, Peter Bernard Kyne, Never the Twain Shall Meet, p. 19:

        If it were not a tradition that a woman shall accept from her fiance a diamond ring which the idiot cannot, in all probability, afford to give her — well, women would not accept them.

      • 2006, Mary Slonaker, The Vinton House, p. 37:

        “Delvin, a diamond ring means you are engaged to be married. I barely know you.”

      • 2010, Juliet Blackwell, If Walls Could Talk: A Haunted Home Renovation Mystery:

        He frowned slightly, whether at the loss of a potential sale or the unnaturalness of a single woman standing beside a handsome man and not lusting after a diamond ring I couldn't be sure.

2. (astronomy) An optical phenomenon visible during a moment of a solar eclipse when only a tiny part of the sun is not obscured by the moon, shining like a diamond in the ring of the sun’s corona.

• Cheers! bd2412 T 02:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hearing no objection (or response at all, I have implemented the subsense proposal). Cheers again! bd2412 T 13:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)