Talk:per se

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should meaning 2 be deleted?[edit]

Meaning 2 is not recognized by the OED or Merriam-Webster. Is it recognized by any authoritative dictionary of the English language? If not, then that would strongly suggest that meaning 2 is not an accepted meaning but instead a (somewhat common) usage error. Should it then be deleted? Or perhaps should it remain in the entry, but with a note marking it as a usage error? In keeping with other dictionaries, I would favor the former over the latter. Any ideas? Thanks. Supplementfacts (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way of noting prevalent errors?

'Per say' is an increasingly frequent error for 'per se'.

Although the pronunciation of 'per say' is much the same as 'per se', it appears that 'say' is usually emphasised more than 'se', perhaps allowing the hearer to discern the speaker's 'spelling mistake'! G-W 13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an "anagrams" section? This is very nonstandard. —This comment was unsigned.

Why not? I've never bothered with the anagrams sections, but some people find them useful. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for verification[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

Rfv-sense: necessarily, precisely, absolutely. We have two other senses, one legal. I cannot find the challenged sense in a reference at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cited, I think, at citations:per se: see if you concur.​—msh210 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur, FWIW. —RuakhTALK 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Cited I have added a reworded sense that I think is an improvement, for which the words above are synonyms. It fits the citations (Thanks, Msh). The other senses of those words prevented me from recognizing the sense and the usage example didn't help because it was too ambiguous. If there is agreement that the reworded sense is better, then the above sense could be RfDed as redundant or it could be handled more expeditiously by moving the synonyms to a Synonyms header. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Your last solution sounds best, DCDuring: kill the RFVed sense and, to the extent applicable, move its contents to 'nyms sections.​—msh210 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneRuakhTALK 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)