Talk:killer
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
Merge redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Could all be combined into "A person, animal, or thing that kills".--Dmol 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with a complete merger. There is something very different meant between "That man is a killer." and "That test is a killer." The second sense is purely figurate, and means "difficult thing", not "thing causing death." --EncycloPetey 15:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Woops, forgot to say I had merged the ones in question. DAVilla 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, they had all been merged. I re-separated out the sense I mention above. --EncycloPetey 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can't many uses just be treated as "A person, animal, thing, or process that causes the figurative death of something" to make clear where in the definition the figurativeness might apply? DCDuring 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A diacritic mark used in Indic scripts to suppress an inherent vowel[edit]
Is this also killer + -er or a transliteration of something? Also someone's snuck in a tonne of example sentences. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it’s just kill + -er, something that kills. In this case, it is a vowel killer. Every Indic consonant has an inherent vowel, usually ‘a’, and the killer character is used to suppress the vowel in order to create a consonant cluster. Sometimes the killer mark kills a consonant (makes it mute). —Stephen (Talk) 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)