Talk:in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

RFD discussion: October–December 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Dictionary material? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Hasn't even really got a definition. Equinox ◑ 15:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is it because it is a religious formula? We have [[don't let the bedbugs bite]], which is principally distinguished from the phrase in question by being cute. As for definitions, we use {{non-gloss definition‏‎}} on 13,632 pages. DCDuring (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure whether it should be called a formula, but it's actually recitation rather than an exclamation. And it comes at the end of a prayer (followed by amen), not at the beginning. DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Donnanz: The relevant WP article is Trinitarian formula DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  It can come at either the beginning or the end (or both!). It can also be used in other situations, such as during a baptism. I'm kind of torn – on the one hand, it isn't very idiomatic and means pretty much exactly what it says (assuming we have the relevant senses of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); on the other hand, it might be good as a translation target, especially if there are languages whose corresponding formula isn't a literal translation of this phrase. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  It is more or less a set phrase though, and I don't think it should be classified as an interjection, whatever happens. DonnanZ (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  Changed to a phrase by Angr. DonnanZ (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that it's a set phrase, but for me the lack of idiomaticity is conclusive. It's not used as a proverb or anything else apart from as part of a prayer, so it's essentially sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  My objection has nothing to do with the religiosity of the phrase, it is that it is a sentence fragment rather than a distinct term. The example of (deprecated template usage) don't let the bedbugs bite can be used idiomatically to mean (deprecated template usage) goodnight, whereas this is closer to (deprecated template usage) how's the weather. It might be a phrasebook or appendix candidate for translating of set religious phrases, but it is not, in itself, a term. - TheDaveRoss 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  It's as much a sentence fragment as any other prepositional phrase, some of which are used in isolation, like up yours. It's use as an opening or closing of a ritual or part of a ritual does not follow from its literal meaning. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that we have the Arabic equivalent at باسم الأب والابن والروح القدس as well as three variants of it. If this is deleted, I suppose they should be too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Even though it's borderline, I am leaning towards keep, especially in the light of the translations that have been dug up, even if most of them are red links. DonnanZ (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I added most of those translations, but they're all word for word identical to the English and could be considered just as SOP as the English. But I still can't quite decide whether this is dictionary-worthy or not. I'll have to think some more on it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Not quite word for word in Bokmål and Nynorsk, and Nynorsk has no less than four differences in spelling when compared with Bokmål. DonnanZ (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete or convert it to a translation target if there are enough non-SOP translations. Use is not limited to rituals and prayers and that it is a specifically Christian formula is obvious if you know enough context—which this dictionary covers. A variant with Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit is also attestable, in case this is kept. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

There are also other variants such as in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, we have an entry already for in the name of (Jesus, the law, etc.). Equinox ◑ 15:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And for Holy Spirit; piecing all these bits together in different languages can be a different matter. DonnanZ (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not mean anything more than what it says. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  At the very least it's an ellipsis: (the following/preceding prayer/ritual is/was spoken/performed) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (thereby being performed and valid in trinitarian religions). If my interpretation is correct that would make it a speech act, which are per se idioms. DCDuring (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. A dictionary is not the place for this. Mihia (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. not idiomatic-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as a phrasebook entry. It's a useful phrase to any Catholic and many other Christians, but it's not idiomatic enough to be kept as a normal entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)