Talk:pull apart

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.

---

SoP with literal sense of pull and ordinary adverbial sense of apart. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete, easy. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep this, add another sense from Macmillan dictionary: to separate two people or animals that are fighting. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Having done this, in the case of animals, the means by which one separates the fighting animals is by grabbing one dog's leg and pulling until the dogs are apart. It helps to have two people. I don't think you can find an instance of this without there being literal pulling. As for people, I similarly doubt that an instance can be found that does not involve literal pulling. A single individual cannot pull two fighting adults apart unless one is immobilized. Thus a test as to the separate meaning would be that an individual pulls apart two fighting adults without pulling. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

One can come inbetween two people who are exchanging punches and talk them into stop fighting. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 13:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course one can. I just don't think you will be able to find pull apart used to characterize the situation. Many other terms are used to characterize means of stopping a fight. I don't think this term has the resultative force that Macmillan's definition says it does.I have less respect for Macmillan's than for many of the other OneLook dictionaries.. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this instance:

There are other similar ones.

As to Macmillan's quality, here is their definition in full: "pull someone apart to separate two people or animals that are fighting". The headword, as they word it, could be defined as to separate important parts of a person's body from one another. See draw and quarter". DCDuring TALK 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned one example of separating people engaged in a fight (by coming inbetween) since I imagined one could use pull apart to describe such an act. Anyway, I'm not sure what the example with Cal an Billy should show. If I got the names right (Cal and Calvin being the same person), wouldn't it be possible that the narrator had pulled Cal and Billy apart by coming in between them since afterwards Cal pushed past the narrator? If Cal and Calvin were two different persons, then the example doesn't show anything to me. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Semms to have been missing a major meaning .. to dismantle a machine or other mechanical device. To strip down. Added now. -- Keep -- ALGRIF talk 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: The entry how has 4 senses. If in doubt, these can be sent to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would like to see something more than assertions to defend the three senses concerning:

  1. opening something by pulling on it,
  2. separating combatants and
  3. disassembling.

I see no reason to keep RfDs evidence-free. To be clear about this: The question is not whether one could find usage where the term is used to describe an situation that could also be described by the glosses offered, but rather to find unambiguous usage where the literal, SoP sense does not explain the usage. Thus, if a third-party government causes two combatant nations to stop fighting and some author says the the third-party pulled them apart, that would be unambiguous favoring inclusion IMO, even though it still is relatively transparent. As metaphorical extensions are hardly unusual, this should not pose an insuperable challenge if these terms are used as the advocates assert. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• RFD kept for no consensus for deletion. For keeping: 3 people; for deletion: 4 people. I voted keep before. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November–December 2015

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

pull apart

open something by pulling on various parts of it. I don't think the definition is accurate, first of all (I have to pull on various parts of this puzzle box I own in order to open it, no one would ever say I pulled it apart). The def could be tightened up, but AFAIK it is only used when you open something by pulling it apart either literally or in the "break down a machine" sense, which is already listed separately (and with which I have no quarrel). WurdSnatcher (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, though I dispute your analysis about accuracy. It only has to work one way, that you see pull apart in usage, you look it up and the definition works. It doesn't have to be that the definition would apply to every single situation covered by 'open something by pulling on various parts of it'. That's going from the dictionary to the real world, which is the other way round. Anyway if it gets deleted, problem over! Renard Migrant (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - it is just another version of the literal use, which already has an entry. Kiwima (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)