Talk:out-
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
rfd-sense:
- 6. (out-A A) Surpass even A in the well known characteristics of A. Written with a hyphen.
This is no different from sense #3 as this is not the only context where someone's name is used as a verb to refer to their typical actions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- The usage examples suggest that the two are intended to be the same. The wording of sense 3 is not substitutable and so should probably be replaced with a non-gloss definition. Sense 6 could be considered a snowclone and might be moved to Appendix:Snowclones. DCDuring TALK 14:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- You mean the two A's are intended to be the same? Of course they are, but that doesn't make it a separate sense. I guess you can put it into snowclones but it's still SOP with "out-" being the same as in sense #3. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, straightforwardly. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- You mean the two A's are intended to be the same? Of course they are, but that doesn't make it a separate sense. I guess you can put it into snowclones but it's still SOP with "out-" being the same as in sense #3. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not how we handle these. DAVilla 04:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I’m the one who created this. There must be an explanation for the construction out-A A somewhere, which has a very specific meaning. Out-Herod doesn’t just mean to surpass; it means to surpass in the characteristics of Herod, and the object must be Herod. That is different from verbs of sense 3 like outdo and outlast. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a counterexample: John copied everything Joseph did until he was better at Josephing than Joseph himself. But then came Jack and out-Josephed John. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn’t sound natural. In your example you established a context where Joseph is understood as a verb. On the contrary, in the following sentence:
- He's not going to out-Clinton Clinton, and if he tried, he would look phony. ([1])
- Clinton is not used as a verb. Someone who cannot understand out-A A should be able to find it easily on Wiktionary. Just deleting it and keeping only the senses 1-5 will make our dictionary really unkind. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that sentence "Clinton" is used as a verb in the same way as in my example. The out- in out-Clinton Clinton is no different than the out- in outmaneuver a military pilot. Yes, it's true that if you're going to out-Clinton someone, it will probably be Clinton that you're out-Clintoning, but that doesn't mean that it will always be Clinton that you're out-Clintoning. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, in that sentence "Clinton" is not used as a verb; "out-Clinton" is used as a verb. "Clinton" is used as a noun, namely the direct object of the verb "out-Clinton". —Angr 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: "Clinton" is used as a verb root to which the prefix out- is added. "Clinton" is then used again as a noun. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, in that sentence "Clinton" is not used as a verb; "out-Clinton" is used as a verb. "Clinton" is used as a noun, namely the direct object of the verb "out-Clinton". —Angr 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that sentence "Clinton" is used as a verb in the same way as in my example. The out- in out-Clinton Clinton is no different than the out- in outmaneuver a military pilot. Yes, it's true that if you're going to out-Clinton someone, it will probably be Clinton that you're out-Clintoning, but that doesn't mean that it will always be Clinton that you're out-Clintoning. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn’t sound natural. In your example you established a context where Joseph is understood as a verb. On the contrary, in the following sentence:
- Here's a counterexample: John copied everything Joseph did until he was better at Josephing than Joseph himself. But then came Jack and out-Josephed John. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Sense 3, right there, is "surpass, exceeding", and I don't see why anyone couldn't figure out that "out-Clinton Clinton" means "exceed Clinton at being Clinton" from the information already given. You can "out-A" anything, not just "A". Examples are, admittedly, hard to find, but:
- Here, for instance, is "out-Hitlered" meaning "to be more destructive of rights (in this case press freedom) than Hitler": The way the Ministry of Information finally told the story, withdrew it and ultimately had to rely on newspaper office raids which out-Hitlered anything experienced in this country for generations deserves a chapter to itself
- Here is an example of out-Stalined not compared to Stalin himself: But any hopes that the Stalinist who has out-Stalined them all might change his ways were dashed at the party congress that opened in Bucharest on November 20th. and likewise In an age of dictators Albania naturally out-Stalined the USSR, grew more Maoist than China, and broke off relations with everyone but the North Koreans.
- Here's an example where "out-Hitlered" is separated from "Hitler" by half a sentence, breaking up its snowcloneness: To such a question I would reply that although these women did want Hitler to be resisted, they most emphatically did not want him to be out-Hitlered.
- And finally, here's an example where the comparison is indirect - Thatcherism is out-Thatchered, not Thatcher herself. That all seems pretty clear proof that "out-A" need not be followed by "A", and that there's nothing odd about the case where it is. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- But there must be an explanation that out-A A is more common than out-A B. A dictionary should help users learn how to use a word, not only giving its meaning. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
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.
Really bad definitions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. They're fine --WF on Holiday (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Currently, almost all the definitions are very short. Perhaps almost a decade ago this page was messy- it is no longer. Only the "surpass" definition is at sentence length, and this too is remarkably succinct. --PhalanxDown 22:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Confusing "Completely" Sense; Examples are derived irregularly- is definition wrong?[edit]
I can't find an affix synonymous with the example words given: "outfit" and "outwork".
"outfit" makes sense, it means to be "completely fit". But this explain its that derivation's noun-sense. Perhaps one could interpret it as "completely clothing", but this is a stretch.
"outwork" does not make sense. If one derives from the verb, it would have the "surpassing" sense. If one derives it from the noun, it would interpreted as "complete or total work". However, the definition for "outwork" is " To work out to a finish; to complete", implying it derives a verb meaning "to complete".
"outfit" and "outwork" do not share the same sense.
What should the definition be? Should this sense be deleted?
A note: Like greco-latin affixs, one can occasional use affixs in non-accordance with their definitions to coin a new word. Perhaps this "sense" is one of those.