Talk:lady who lunches

Synonym

I cannot agree that this is a synonym of lady of leisure. A 'lady of leisure' is almost invariably of independent means whereas a 'lady who lunches' while she may be of independent means, will often have a 'job' or a position in an organisation that allows her both the time and the money to indulge in the practice. S a g a C i t y (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Usage

Is there any way of flagging that this phrase as usually found in the plural? S a g a C i t y (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a context tag. An alternative would be to add a usage note (but we wouldn't use both a usage note and a context tag). - -sche (discuss) 06:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

This discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, whither it had been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

Discussion renamed from 'ladies who lunch' to 'lady who lunches.

I was surprised to see this had been deleted. Wikipedia has a somewhat over-prescriptive version of the phrase and it's certainly not a new phrase as suggested by the deleter. I would say that it arose here in England around the mid-1990s. What is the mechanism for having it undeleted? S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to RFV; if it's real, it should be kept. (Note: I've undeleted the entry until this discussion is resolved.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, move to RFV. Note there is a singular, e.g. (Tammi Shelton) "Matching [my dress] with pea green 3 inch heels, pearl necklace and 7mm pearl earrings; I once again look like a lady who lunches". Equinox ◑ 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K., moved to RFV; I should actually have done that to begin with, since the original reason given for deletion was that it seemed to be a protologism, which presumably means the deleter doubted its attestation rather than its idiomaticity. —Ruakh_TALK 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, moved to [[lady who lunches]]. —Ruakh_TALK 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Cited, I reckon. It's in Bridget Jones's Diary, which is more than 15 years old now and very well known. Equinox ◑ 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Connel's suggestion that we see how the point system works, the four cites in the entry are worth 4 (Fielding) + 4 (Hunter) + 4 (Monthly) + 4 (Shelton, if it's edited and in print; otherwise I guess 3 or maybe 0; people adding cites they found online should add links, too); total, 16 (or 15 or 12).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In the future, using {{movedto}} might be helpful. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the 1970 song 'Ladies who lunch' (from Sondheim's musical Company) citable? It could be the origin of the phrase in the plural and the singular is a back-formation. S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The definition includes material belonging in an etymology IMO. Also "well connected" is not essential to the definition in my experience and is not clearly supported by the citations. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• You may be right, but if it's an active metaphor, then that's part of the definition. —Ruakh_TALK 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree that any etymological element is intrinsically part of the definition of any term. I know of no lexicographic practice that prescribes that etymological origin necessarily is part of the definition of an active metaphor. A term has a meaning that is to a greater or lesser extent connected to its etymology, but is distinct. Also, by what definition is this a metaphor? It is a loose characterization of a group by a supposed behavior of members. That would be a metonymy, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DCD that the citations just support 'rich', not necessarily 'well-connected'. Anyway, definition-tweaking aside, the term itself passes RFV. - -sche (discuss) 04:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)