Couldn't it be added under the heading ===Related words=== ? As far as I know real is never used instead of real estate, or is it?Polyglot 18:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In the OED, 2nd ed, there is no example for "real" (except in the phrase "real estate") post-1863. Then again I am not sure if this proves anything because the OED's staff must have an arduous job keeping it all up to date. I suspect this usage may perhaps still be in use in legal documents, but I don't know. I doubt we should include it merely on the say-so of other dictionaries if none of us has ever heard or seen it so used. Amatlexico 19:18 8 Dec 2003 UTC
"Real property" is another phrase using it in this context. It does appear to be limited to the legal profession. Ortonmc 19:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just added (currently) (6) - "genuine, not fake" - though I almost feel this may be a shade of meaning (1). In fact I was tempted to put it under (1), possibly as (1)(a), if that's possible. But it also almost bleeds into (5), so I didn't. I also wonder if "real tears" and "real leather" might be examples of two different meanings, or if a distinction like that would be overly subtle. -- Dunhamrc 22:45, Dec 8 2003 (CST) - which would be 04:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Def. 6 is entirely worthy of its own subparagraph, although your analysis does seem entirely accurate, IMO. Now for Def. #7, best exemplified in the informal invocatory "get real!". -- Sternthinker Dec 9 2003 16:30 ET
Is the French translation of the noun correct? According to my French dictionary (Petit Larousse, 1989), a "réal" (note the accent) is a former coin of Spain worth a quarter of a peseta. That's not to say that "real" is wrong, but I don't see anything having the same defintion ("reis" is listed, but is completely unrelated). My bilingual dictionary does not give it either. — Paul G 09:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- w:fr:Real seems to say so — taking it, apparently, as a new borrowing from Portuguese. As the Spanish coin has etymologically the same name, it might be justified either way, as réal or real. —Muke Tever 18:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that the adverbial meanning should be defined by itself rather then referring to 'really'. Two reasons, only one of the meanings of 'really' applies to real, so the reference is inaccurate. Also, I think that real (meaning 'very') as an intensifier predates 'really' with the same meaning. The use of 'really' was apparently a back-formation.
real in economics
The current version reads, "That is a version of a fact or statistic (especially in economics) that is intended to reflect key fundamental trends, generally generated by the removal or nullification of irrelevant or "noisy" data from the input." and includes the examples, "real consumption" and, "real GNP." This is not the sense of either of these examples. In both cases they mean real in that it's not in terms of fiat money in general (something that's inherently worthless but has socially agreed upon value). However, it is often quoted in terms of specific time's fiat money (i.e. dollars in the United States) because money is also used as a measure of value and a specific time's fiat money can be converted into any real quantity (using the price at that time). I'm writing here because I don't know if these entry I just described is new (i.e. the existing entry should stay) or if I should update what is presently there.
In either case, I'd propose, "(economics) in terms of actual goods, or having the effect of inflation removed." 22.214.171.124 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd support a definition along the lines of:
- Does that sound O.K.?
- —RuakhTALK 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's great. I'll replace the old. I looked at it again, and I've never heard of that definition in either statistics of economics. 126.96.36.199 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
real in mathematics
The current definition for mathematics is, "(mathematics) Relating to numbers with a one-to-one correspondence to the points on a line." Doesn't this make the product of i and the numbers in [0,1] "real"? —This unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
- Yeah, that definition's kind of messed up. An accurate definition would be something like "Being an element of the closure of the set of rational numbers", but then, I'm not sure how useful that would be to someone who didn't already understand it. :-/ —RuakhTALK 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Real in keeping it real.
'Real' in "keeping it real" is a noun not an adjective because it doesn't describe 'it'-'it' could be anything-and real is another name for the state that you want 'it' to be kept. Similarly in the phrase 'keeping it fake', fake is also a noun. 184.108.40.206 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)