Talk:dude

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've never heard that usage, and the common uses are not given.

It's not obsolete, though by itself it is certainly archaic: the sense still persists in the collocation dude ranch. —Muke Tever 22:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Empirical study on "dude"[edit]

You might find this study by U Pitt linguist Scott Kiesling relevant for specifying "dude"

http://www.pitt.edu/~kiesling/dude/dude.html

For full pdf of paper, see http://www.pitt.edu/~kiesling/dude/dude.pdf

Another use[edit]

In the plural: "[H]e ... bought a cheap spinning outfit, and some white and yellow nylon dudes." -- John D. MacDonald, "Deadly Welcome", Chapter 4, first paragraph.

This may have been some fisherman's slang for water-repellent or quick drying clothing back in the 1950s when the book was written. That's all I can make of it from the context.

Hey Dude !![edit]

The term was perfectly illutrated in the wonderful movie "The Big Lebowski": Jeff Bridges was the Dude... baba-cool, relaxed, quite the opposite of a dandy... JC Cardinal - 6th Jan 2005


i swear dude means whale penis?

Actually, a whale penis is a dork.

Rumor- derived from term for horse penis?[edit]

I heard a rumor that originally the dude from duderanch was a reference to horse penis- which doesn't seem unlikely as a possible the origin for inexperienced cowboy? 

 Can anyone confirm or repute this? Ever Heard of a Dude Ranch?

I just confirmed it. Congratulations!


It is competly false the word means "An inexperienced cowboy" it comes from a dutch word — This unsigned comment was added by 76.15.62.198 (talk) at 09:33, 10 November 2008.

Not only that, but there is a variation on this theme. Many people believe dude to mean Camel´s penis. Although it is impossible to track or prove, I made this up at Southcott Lower School, in Leighton Buzzard, England when I was 7 years old (1985). It has been very interesting to see this idea spread.

Really? In 1985? The 'camels penis/foreskin/testicles' rumour has been around much longer than that. I remember in middle school (1979 - 1983) the same rumour.

Really, again, really. I heard it in 1972 in reference to one of 26 transports two mascots, camels. If your going to claim starting a rumour well after it was started, you should take your hand of your clasper, you must have two.

Infected Hair on an Elephant's Posterior?[edit]

I once heard long ago that "dude" is the term for an infected hair on an elephant's rear end.

Could it be that there are numerous rumored crude definitions of the word "dude"? 99.159.248.140 06:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apparently that's true. See here. Should this be used as a ref for the entry? Thanks. AstroNoun-icane-01 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude! You cannot use a website that has less credentials than a schizophrenic homeless heroin addict selling ice cubes to a penguin!--BillyNair 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the original meaning of dude was a whales penis. And whales have huge penises (I would assume). I think the meaning of dude is an infected hair on an elephants penis.

Sorry, Dude, but a whale's penis is called a "Dork".

RFV discussion 1[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

rfv PoS Interjection with 8 meanings. All of which seem to actually be something like "yo" or "hey you" or "mate". At the very least it needs consolidation and rewording, I think. DCDuring TALK 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these come under the noun sense "term of address for a man", and so can be deleted. Incidentally, the fact that a word is used as a pro-sentence does not make it an interjection; from the Wikipedia article on pro-sentences: "Pro-sentences are sometimes seen as grammatical interjections, since they are capable of very limited syntactical relations. But they can also be classified as a distinct part of speech, given that (other) interjections have meanings of their own and are often described as expressions of feelings or emotions." — Paul G 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interjection is just the best available PoS heading within ELE, I think, not necessarily the best term. I haven't heard of a good alternative term that users would understand without a lot of explanation. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of these supposed senses are just what DC says they are -- equivalents of "yo" or "hey you" or "mate". There's one sense here, at the most. I'd be happy to see this whole POS eliminated from the entry. -- WikiPedant 04:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clocked out Note: noun not challenged. DCDuring TALK 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, ===Interjection=== removed. —RuakhTALK 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion 2[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

Rfv-sense: "Mistaken in parts of England as the word for a camel's penis". Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a hoax. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR this is a widespread hoax, rather like the definition of twat as a pregnant goldfish. Equinox ◑ 17:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to RFD. As I understand it, the definition is trying to say, roughly, "In parts of England, some people mistakenly believe this is the word for a camel's penis." Equinox (talk • contribs) seems to be confirming the accuracy of that statement; and it's inherently unattestable. (If we can find three cites where someone's been tricked into using it this way, then we can define it as "A camel's penis"; but that's not what this definition is suggesting.) So the question is, do we want such a sense? —RuakhTALK 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are a descriptive, not an antiprescriptive, dictionary. That is, we want words people use mistakenly, not words people say others use mistakenly. Delete if not cited; otherwise, rewrite.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if this affects your point, but — I don't know if "people say others use [this word] mistakenly". That doesn't seem to be what the sense is suggesting, anyway. —RuakhTALK 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mistaken in parts of England as the word for a camel's penis" can AFAICT mean either (1) that the word for a camel's penis is "tood" or something and that this word is mistaken for it (not likely that that's what's meant here) or (2) that the word is said to be the word for a camel's penis (even though no one uses it as such), which means (if Englishmen are descriptivists) that the word is said to be used for a camel's penis (even though in fact no one uses it thusly). Which is what I said. I suppose your objection is that Englishmen might not be descriptivists? In that case, our definition means "thought in parts of England of as a former word, or etymologically should-be word, or something, for a camel's penis, though it's none of those", which belongs, if anywhere, in an etymology section, since we are descriptivists, though IMO not even there.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I see what you mean. I take it to mean "the word is said to have originally meant 'camel's penis'" (descriptivist, but not necessarily describing present usage), -slash- "the word is said to properly mean 'camel's penis'" (prescriptivist). Most people are both descriptivist and prescriptivist, because they haven't thought thoroughly enough (or clearly enough) about the issues in order to experience the cognitive dissonance that would force them to abandon prescriptivism. Likewise: "he thinks I live in Cleveland" doesn't entail "he thinks I live in Ohio", since he might not know that Cleveland is in Ohio, or simply might not have thought about the relevance of that fact. —RuakhTALK 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not waste too much more time. Just delete the sense. SemperBlotto 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are uses in this sense, it should be "(British)(non-standard) a camel's penis", otherwise it should just be deleted.--Prosfilaes 21:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's vulgar I really think we shouldn't stand for it without a single quotation or at least some sort of reference. Speedy delete. DAVilla 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Although I think this belongs here and really should have its month, (a) it smells like tosh, (b) what DAVilla said, and (c) even its author doesn't think it's real. Speedily delete it IMO.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited the claim (more or less): it is now demonstrated that various people have thought this word meant "camel's penis" or similar. Can we now move this to an appropriate forum, such as RFD? —RuakhTALK 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive research skills! But these cites all seem to be mentions rather than uses. I don't think anyone has ever actually used it to mean "camel's penis", for the good reason that it's never meant that. Ƿidsiþ 15:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my initial comment above. It is more or less impossible to use this sense. The closest we could come is if someone used dude to mean "camel penis", but that would actually support a hypothetical sense "(rare) A camel penis", rather than the listed "sense". That's why I don't think RFV was the right place for it. (Note: strictly technically speaking, I think the 1999, 2004, and 2007 cites are "using" the word, not just "mentioning" it. But I freely concede that these "uses" would not justify an actual sense of "(rare) A camel penis", and that's not the point.) —RuakhTALK 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I see what you mean. Ƿidsiþ 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. As I said above, it should have its month, but should be deleted, so, well, it's had its month (more precisely: it's been cited; thanks, Ruakh), and I still think it should be deleted.  :-)  If someone brings this to RFD (which would be appropriate, I suppose), can he please copy over the conversation thus far, so as to include my (19:34 and 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)) and others' recommendations for deletion?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to RFD. If it fails verification then it can be deleted. Now that we have at least a foothold on the claim, I withdraw my speedy delete and allow a month to verify. DAVilla 16:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to wait a month. The claim has been verified. The question is no longer "is the claim true?", but only "do we want to make it?" —RuakhTALK 16:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not list claims, we list definitions. It is not yet verified as a camel's penis since most of the quotations are of mention not use. DAVilla 07:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "yet" about it. If you want to add and cite a definition of "camel's penis", be my guest, but that's not necessary for this RFV. —RuakhTALK 16:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I find three reports of an occasion when someone once used "apple" to mean "banana", do we make an entry? (Rhetorical question, no reply expected!) Dbfirs 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ("mistaken in parts of England as the word for a camel's penis") has been moved to RFD, but now someone's added another sense, "a camel's penis", simultaneously marking it with {{rfv-sense}} but not bringing it here, so I have the dubious honor of so doing, hereby.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is necessary to address what is almost certainly a word myth in a way that users can understand. The talk page should have the record of our efforts to actually cite the now-RfVed sense. The indirectly reported mistaken-sense approach seems like a bad one, especially because it would seem to intrinsically depend on mentions, not uses. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. I've removed the uncited, unciteable "a camel's penis" sense that DAVilla (talk • contribs) added and tagged for no reason I can discern. —RuakhTALK 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion 1[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Per Wiktionary:Requests for verification#dude, this is apparently not an entry for the definition of dude as a camel's penis, but for the claim that some people think that's what it means. We do not include claims in this dictionary, only definitions of actual use. Otherwise nearly every "only in dictionaries" term could be moved to the main dictionary space. DAVilla 17:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a "camel's penis" sense were citeable, then it would warrant an etymology section, or at least a usage note, explaining that said sense started as a hoax; or if this belief were exceedingly common, we might want to explicitly address it in some fashion; but even then, this wouldn't warrant a definition line. —RuakhTALK 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good point about dictionary-only terms.--Prosfilaes 19:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a usage note or something similar. It has been verified that some people do think that "dude" means "a camel's penis", and I think that we ought to mention this somewhere. The definition line is, I agree, not the right place though. If I believed in trivia sections then this would fit there, but as I don't I'm not going to recommend creating one! My reasoning is that this is not completely dissimilar to folk etymologies, which we list as such in order to educate our readers that they are not true, and I see no reason to not educate our readers similarly regarding this. Thryduulf (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just rely on this and the RfV discussion to supplement the existing discussion on Talk:dude? It would join mention of of penises of two other animals as well. Delete. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion 2[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

dude#Pronoun: (slang) he (used only at the beginning of a sentence or phrase)

Dude don't know what's good for him.

It is much easier to interpret this as meaning "that man" with "that" omitted than to claim it as a limited-use pronoun. The same grammar can be found in reported dialect speech including AAVE, I think, with other nouns, especially "girl", "man", "guy", "brother", "sister". I don't think they are all pronouns. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
  • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
  • Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
Delete. I'm not sure about an inferred "that" specifically — in a sentence like "yeah one thing i dont like how he dresses up with them big ass clocks and weird ass hats,but dude be grinding"[1] I don't think "that dude" would make much sense — but yeah, this seems to be a general feature of AAVE grammar, not specifically a property of dude. —RuakhTALK 02:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably. Per above, seems like a noun not a pronoun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grammatically still a noun, just with article or determiner omitted. DAVilla 07:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per DAVilla. bd2412 T 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, nice work with the analysis, guys. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vocative[edit]

# {{context|slang|lang=en}} A [[man]].
# {{context|slang|used in the vocative|lang=en}} A term of address for a man.

Do we need a separate sense for the vocative? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Only UK IPA I know is /duːd/. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. /duːd/ is it. I sometimes use /djuːd/ as a comical pronunciation and I guess others sometimes do as well, but the other one listed would be for "jood" or "Jude" and I've never such a silly idea before. — hippietrail (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few American accents (see File:Iw-uw merger.svg) without yod-dropping; perhaps they pronounce it /dju:d/. —Angr 11:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see there's a little confusion here. Let me make my point. I'm not completely sure, but I learnt that British speakers don't use the "yod-dropping" as much as Americans do. Please check this section, on Wikipedia, to read more about it. There, it says "In General American yod-dropping is found not only in the above environments but also after /t/, /d/ and /n/; for example tune [ˈtuːn], dew [ˈduː], new [ˈnuː] (...) General American thus undergoes yod-dropping after all alveolar consonants". This does not happen in Received Pronunciation (RP). For example, I speak RP. We would pronounce dude as [ˈdjuːd], just like we would pronounce, for example, during as [ˈdjuːɹɪŋ]. Some speakers, however, could do something else. It's called "yod-coalescence" (check the following section). Speakers with this feature would pronounce during as [ˈdjuːɹɪŋ], and dude as [ˈdʒuːd] (note that this example is actually given in the homophonous pairs). OK. Now that we have everything cleared, could you please remove that tag asking for verification of those two pronunciations? Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yod-dropping and yod-coalescence are irrelevant; the point is that in this case there is no yod. I've never heard anybody say /djuːd/ or /dʒuːd/, either here in Britain or elsewhere - unless you can find an example otherwise, I think this pronunciation should be removed. Keith the Koala (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emergent gender-neutrality of dude as an appellation[edit]

My experience as a child of the '80s is that "dude" is becoming less gender specific in the vocative or appellate sense, and in some cases can be an honorific, though in certain contexts, it still refers generally to a man. I feel like this aspect should be included a little more thoroughly, much as its becoming acceptable for a woman to be a "bro" in some contexts, albeit fewer than dude. Tbessler (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure dude actually isn't gender neutral, though. Paintflakes (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/January#guy/guys_gender is related (and touches on dude some). - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:dude&oldid=63156907"