Talk:orientationist

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

===Noun===
{{en-noun}}
#{{rfv-sense}}One who [[oppress]]es or [[hate]]s people of [[sexual orientation]]s other than his own.
#*'''1998''' September 15, Mark Wilden <Mark@mWilden.com>, "Re: Most naive and uninformed American tourists in Europe", ''rec.travel.europe'', et al., Usenet,
#*:And why do you assume that only men appreciate a good-looking woman? And so soon after the Emmies! You '''orientationist''', you!

orientationist

Rfv noun sense. I've cited the adjective sense, but can't seem to cite the noun. Perhaps someone else can.—msh210℠ 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "-ist" normally form a noun referring to believers or practicioners of the corresponding "-ism"? Aren't your adjectival quotes exemplars of nouns used as adjectives? Does one need to document both noun and adjective use of a noun in English, which is rife with such usage. DCDuring 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally, "-ist" forms a noun, and "-ist" as an adjective would just be an attributive form of that noun. But words like racist, sexist, and ageist — of which the instant word is one — are exceptions in my opinion: they're really adjectives. That is, "racist joke" does not mean "joke of or about a racist" (as "lawyer joke" means "joke about a lawyer" and "comedian joke" can mean "joke of a comedian"); rather, it means "joke that is racist". (Note too that there's no adjective *"racistic" (or the others).) So, yes, we have two separate senses: noun and adjective. And the question here is whether we can document the noun sense; I haven't been able to.—msh210℠ 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is actually an adjective racistic: [1]. --Ptcamn 09:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the rest of what I said holds (imo).—msh210℠ 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)