Talk:fuck you money

two etymologies

Do we really need two etymologies? @Equinox? PUC – 20:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because they come from two different motives. Theknightwho (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I expressed myself badly: do we need two etymology headers, as opposed to a single one with two bullet points or something? I believe this was suggested elsewhere for a similar case (I can't remember which unfortunately). PUC – 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@PUC That was for Japanese, in instances where there are separate etymologies with identical meanings; that doesn't apply here. Theknightwho (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it was an English entry. PUC – 21:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@PUC I don't see how it could work here, though - the bullet points would apply to separate senses, which means for all intents and purposes there are two etymologies. Theknightwho (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@PUC @Theknightwho I think having separate etys is wrong. The etymology (in terms of "where did the words come from") is identical. Maybe the history of the usage of the words is different, but they are still clearly the same modern words. It's not fucking Anglo-Saxon versus French route. The current "ety" split seems to be an actual meaning split. Equinox ◑ 05:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the fence but leaning towards merging because I'm not sure there's even that much difference in meaning: it's worth separate senses, sure, but the difference doesn't seem so great as to be separate etymologies, because it's just: if you have fuck you money, you have enough money that you can just be like fuck you, whereas you have fuck you money, you have enough money that you're just like fuck you. (To your boss in the first case, and to other people in the second case, or maybe the other way around.) I understand the thought process behind splitting (I think), but the "etymologies" seem like things that would just go in {{n-g}} or {{q}}. - -sche (discuss) 14:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)