Talk:in cash
Latest comment: 10 years ago by -sche in topic in cash
Deletion discussion
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
A payment "in cash", etc. This is just a normal use of the word "in". You can also pay "in gold", "in forged banknotes", etc. Equinox ◑ 19:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Make it a Phrasebook entry and it becomes untouchable. Seriously speaking: delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have added a usex with "in cash" to [[cash#Noun]]. The invitation to challenge the RfD remaining unaccepted, my own instinct says Delete. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. bd2412 T 16:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The payment is done inside some sort of cash? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. I just didn't have the courage to hack away at every piece. We are certainly missing subsenses and also some senses that are hard to fit under the senses now in the entry. Having access to the OED would help make sense of the groupings, though there might be too much information not strictly relevant to current senses. I should probably put some musings on Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I just started a topic at Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#in so we can discuss this further without cluttering this one further. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Payment "in cash", fine. But payment by some other means is expressed with "by" - by cheque, by credit / debit card, by bank transfer, etc. - apart from the "in" examples mentioned by Chuck Entz. I can see some merit in keeping it. Donnanz (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnanz That is a question of the meaning/usage of the prepositions. By the reasoning you offer, should we not have [[in goods]], [[in trade]], [[in dollars]] (and other currencies), [[in gold]], [[in stock]], [[in money]], just to use the collocations occurring more than once at COCA. I'm sure many other collocations would be attestable, such as [[in coin]], [[in silver certificates]], [[in benjamins]], [[in twenty-dollar bills]] , [[in installments]]. And of course [[by check]], [[by debit card]], [[by credit card]], [[by wire transfer]].
- I think if we looked into it the newer-fangled means of payment (the ones used with by) could be shown to be viewed as instrumentalities for paying in cash. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, this is worse than handbags at dawn. I pass a mild comment and get shot down in flames. If the phrase was spelt "incash" you wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but it simply isn't. It's a common enough phrase though, so judge it by that. By the way, there's no entry for newer-fangled, but I like it. Donnanz (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnanz Am I right that your RFD vote is not based on WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't, but "clearly widespread use" is a good criterion for inclusion. Donnanz (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnanz You raised an interesting point. I wasn't sure it was wrong when I started looking at evidence. Your argument also had the misfortune of being raised when I was reading up on prepositions with an eye toward editing [[in#English]].
- Damn. I was hoping I'd coined newer-fangled, but it looks attestable! More surprisingly to me newest-fangled appears in D H Lawrence's Aaron's Rod and many less distinguished books. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't, but "clearly widespread use" is a good criterion for inclusion. Donnanz (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnanz Am I right that your RFD vote is not based on WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, this is worse than handbags at dawn. I pass a mild comment and get shot down in flames. If the phrase was spelt "incash" you wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but it simply isn't. It's a common enough phrase though, so judge it by that. By the way, there's no entry for newer-fangled, but I like it. Donnanz (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here is my contribution to the ongoing discussion: 2013, Ann-Charlotte Nilsson, Children and Youth in Armed Conflict, p. 207: "[W]ith regards to public education in the provinces about 80–90 per cent is paid for by the parents, and in some cases teachers are being paid in bananas...". Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)