Talk:putative

"Potential", etc.

@Mihia, I noticed your addition of a "loose/mistaken" definition and I read the brief Teahouse discussion about it. However, I question the interpretation that's resulted here.

The 2018 quotation could well be interpreted as a correct usage of "putative" as "accepted by supposition..." The context you've reproduced here clearly explains that with 47 minutes' worth of material, the reporter/editor here believes that it was intended for an album, but experienced a significant delay in its release in such a format. And, the release is more of a "lost treasures" compilation than a formally-produced album format. It could go either way, admittedly, but with this particular informal usage, isolated in a music-related article, I see no need to coin such an erroneous definition or assume ignorance on the part of the editors.

Now, the 2023 quote is unfortunately from a source which enwiki deems "unreliable for any purpose". I believe that we should delete the Daily Mail on sight and we shouldn't be linking to its articles under any circumstance. It's a tabloid, and the sloppy, sensationalistic writing shouldn't be held up as an example of either good or erroneous usage of English words. This self-same article slings around terms like "anointed" and "kiss the ring" in a quite anti-Catholic tirade of ignorant bigotry. We don't need to perpetuate that here. I'm going ahead to delete this quote.

If others would kindly weigh in on the proposition that we don't really need a neologistic, erroneous interpretation at all, perhaps we can preserve the 2018 quotation and fold it into the original definition, and do away with the newly added stuff. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever one may think about the factual reliability of Daily Mail, it is a perfectly acceptable source for examples of English language usage. It is absurd to remove this quotation calling it "bigoted" and "unreliable", and I intend to restore it. I do believe that the other quotation also represents the "erroneous" or "loose" sense, but more can no doubt be found, whether or not you personally approve of this usage. In fact, when I was looking at this previously it seemed almost common. I wouldn't have added it on the basis of a couple of very rare misuses. I'll try to add some more examples in due course. Mihia (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

'tis not a matter of personal approval or taste, and that's exactly why I'm disputing this. You haven't cited a definition, nor a descriptive source which objectively demonstrates it. You've inferred meaning (IMHO, wrongly) and nobody else here has supported your proposal or your opinion. Elizium23 (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)