Talk:right

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

Interjection[edit]

What about: "That's it, right?"


Right! Yeah right!


What is its function in:

right behind the traffic lights.


"Right yeah right", depends on how it is said, it could mean "yes correct" or "yes, whatever i dont care".

"right behind the traffic lights" means "its there next to or exactly behind the traffic lights"

- I dont know how to exaclty define it, but I hope it easier to understand the ways I have put it. -fonzy

-I'd say in right behind, right beside, etc. a synonym for right would be immediately of directly. In Dutch: vlak, meteen, direct.
-For "yeah right" (and "sure") isn't the "whatever" meaning just an example of irony? Maybe it should be described because it's used so often.
InfoSlave 10:21 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I know what it means and how to translate it, I wasn't sure about the grammatical function though. Is it an adverb in 'right after I manage to get this job done'? Or an adjective? Something else? Thanks Polyglot 11:03 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

      • Where did the ===Interjection=== section go? This is certainly an interjection with or without the "yeah." The same level of sarcasm is conveyed by tone of voice. But "yeah" is certainly optional. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would include right as an interjection with the function of changing the subject matter under discussion. It is certainly taught as such to students of business English for meetings and presentations. It is a signpost interjection along with So. and Now. Algrif 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


I want to add some antonyms, such as "privilege" (antonym to "right (n), legal entitlement") or "topple" (antonym to "right (v), to set straight"). There doesn't seem to be a good way to indicate in the Antonym section that these belong to definitions in the Noun and Verb sections, rather than the Adjective section. How should this kind of thing be formatted? Bob Jonkman

Hi Bob, welcome.
You would add antonyms on level 4 like translations or synonyms and you would have as many sections as there are antonyms for the different parts of speech.
===Noun===
'''right'''
# Something one is legally entitled to
# The right side
# (''Politics'') The [[ensemble]] of right-wing [[political]] parties; political [[conservatives]] as a group.

====Antonym====
*[[privilege]] (1)
whether this really is an antonym, I don't know. But that's the way to do it. Polyglot 08:52, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From RFC[edit]

"From: WT:RFC"

Missing Interjection.

Multiple Etymology layout is good, interesting and coherent, but not what we do here at en.Wiktionary.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Two of the etymologies are essentially the same, but it looks like one meaning of the word has an entirely different history, and really needs its own etymology. Wiktionary is supposed to be flexible. Dfeuer 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing my last comment, please refer to Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Homographs.Dfeuer 07:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting now, to see what Wiktionary used to be like, back when multiple etymologies were restricted to words of vastly different origin. It is kindof funny how things have worked out, now. I can't say I'm happy with the resulting layout for multiple etymologies (let alone, dividing the entry definitions all over the place, by part-of-speech.) Water under the bridge, I suppose. --Connel MacKenzie 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From RFC 2[edit]

Absurd format, ridiculous (multiple) folk etyms. --Connel MacKenzie 08:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up what's there – someone will need to add the adverb at some point. (btw, what folk etyms? They look good to me) Widsith 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Adverb = very. Colloquial?[edit]

I was considering right = very (or perhaps very, very) but I suspect this usage is only found in northern UK dialect. E.g.

  1. He works right hard in the factory.
    Then there was a right big argument.
    I made a right stupid mistake there, didn't I?

and so on. Would this pass CFI? Algrif 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's virtually unknown in the US. I don't thinnk I would have heard of it if I hadn't grown up watching a lot of British television. I would expect this to pass CFI, particularly if people went looking for quotations (altought finding this particular sense amidst all the other possible uses could be challenging). --EncycloPetey 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I read it/heard it in w:A Clockwork Orange, but never before nor since. Seems to be reasonable, with the {{UK}} tag (or similar.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
His Judgment cometh, and that right soon. (w:Shawshank Redemption) Maybe archaic-only in US? Cynewulf 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've definitely encountered "right" as an adverb in this sense, but it definitely sounds odd to me; I'm not sure if it's archaic here (in the U.S.), or dialectic (maybe Southern rural?), or if I'm mainly familiar with it from British works, or what. —RuakhTALK 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right! I'll get right onto it right now and right quickly. I'll make sure it's in the right place,too. Algrif 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly current in the UK. I recently heard the phrase "right bloody bastard" on a re-run of a Coupling episode. --EncycloPetey 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Can it be that I heard it pronounced /reɪt/? It was an American movie, if it helps. Ferike333 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In some Southern US pronunciations, this word's pronunciation approaches that of [[rat]]. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, it can be where I live (Western Canada) only(!) the first definition of the adverb section under the second etymology is pronounced that way, and every other definition has the standard pronunciation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From the Tea Room[edit]

Teacup clipart.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

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.


Is there a difference between the adjective sense of Etymology 1 "To a great extent or degree: I am right glad, the Right Honorable" and the adverb sense of Etymology 2 "Very, extremely, quite: I made a right stupid mistake". Is the first really an adjective, or is it an adverb? Can we be sure it's etymologically distinct from the second, the adverb? (I was right surprised to see that the first was called archaic, by the way. As has been said on the talk page, even in the US it's dated and dialectal at worst, but still broadly familiar.) - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are any of the adverb senses under Etymology 2 really from that etymology, rather than from Etymology 1? - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
As to first set of questions, I think right (to a great degree or extent) is an adverb. Unlike some degree adverbs, it does not have a corresponding adjective sense, AFAIK.
As to separate etymology question, I don't think so. BTW, apparently the OE verb rihtan (ety 2) is itself from the OE adjective riht (ety 1). DCDuring TALK 14:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Stray Comment[edit]

I made an edit to remove a stray HTML comment that was cutting off the end of the article. I am unsure if the comment was intended or not. I closed the comment at the end of the line, which looks correct. Jorgon (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


New usage as interjection or intensifier[edit]

It seems to me that there's a new usage of "right" as an interjection, expressing agreement in a different way than has been listed here. Specifically, it's used with the intonation of a question. I think it started with the phrase "I know, right?" which was then shortened to just "Right?" It reminds me of the usage of the particle at the end of Japanese sentences, in that it's intoned as a question, but not actually meant as one. I'd say this is extremely colloquial, but I've just heard an announcer on NPR use it in an interview, which makes me think it's hit a certain level of acceptability.


Most right and rightmost[edit]

Would it be just as correct to speak of the "most right side of the page" as it would be to speak of the "rightmost side of the page"? My feeling is that the answer is yes. Some people have a problem with "rightest". "The Independent" speaks of the "most far-right countries in Europe". If we say it that way, then it could also be "the most right countries in Europe" or "the rightmost countries in Europe", but not "the rightest countries in Europe", you would think. 75.165.105.167 13:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "rightmost" is used to refer to physical location. "most right" only ever with the political meaning. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Remember, though, that the political spectrum actually refers to the physical left and the physical right, when French politicians sat to the left or to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president. And here's a place in Wikipedia that says "righter" and "rightest" are at least not required or maybe incorrect, depending on how you read it. "New York Times" article states that "more right" and "most right" are preferred to "righter" and "wronger". It doesn't elaborate, so I don't know if that applies across the board to every definition of "right" or not. This book (see areas highlighted in yellow) uses both forms of both the superlative and the comparative in the same sentence, apparently for emphasis. A search in cambridge.org turns up no results for "rightest", although it has "brightest", "lightest", etc. The expression "You couldn't be more right" is very common.
The Anglican Church uses the phrase the "Most Reverend and Right Honourable" so-and-so. It is not clear to me whether or not the adverb "most" is modifying "right" or not in this case, but it certainly might be. In this case, "right" is an adverb that is modifying "honourable", but I wonder if even then, "most" could be modifying "right" as well.
Let us remember that "righter" can also be a "righter of wrongs". Maybe this is one reason why some people prefer to keep that as something separate. 75.165.105.167 14:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
In the phrase "Most Reverend and Right Honourable", "Most Reverend" and "Right Honourable" are separate, and right is approximately synonymous with quite or definitely, and your other examples also have different senses than what you're talking about above, which is a direction- and you can't do that with directions in standard English: up, down, left, right, north, south, east, west, front, back, in, out, before, after. I think it has to do with with directions being absolutes that don't have quantity or degree. "Most right" would be parallel to "most up" or "most before", which are equally strange. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that the two phrases "Most Reverend" and "Right Honourable" are separate, now that I've given it some thought. With "up", remember that we have "upmost" and with "before" we have "first". For degrees of "up", I guess one could use "superior". We get so used to using "superior" in other senses than degrees of up.
Changing the subject a little, in the simple English version of Wiktionary, it has "most right", but over here it doesn't. When you look at the definition for "rightest", though -- although this might not refer to degrees of being physically right -- it gives the definition "most right". I take that to mean that both forms are correct, according to Wiktionary, and that would agree with the book I cited where both forms were used in the same sentence, apparently to emphasise a point. It was written in 1897. There's one case, only one case, of "rightest" in the Douay-Rheims Bible, so I lean strongly toward saying that is a very acceptable word. It was apparently used in the sense of "most correct", not "farthest to the right".
People who say there are not degrees of being right are mistaken. 9 and 11 are definitely closer to 10 than 8, 7, etc. If being closest to 10 is rightest, excluding the number 10, then 9 and 11 are the rightest and 8 is righter than 7.
Another thing I'm wondering about is if "rightmost" is the only way to express the idea of being farthest to the right. It doesn't prohibit using "most right", but when you look at the definition of "rightmost", it does not mention "most right". So now I'm wondering why people say "the most far-right countries of Europe" instead of "the rightmost countries of Europe". They could even capitalise "Rightmost" to make it clear they are referring to the political spectrum. I've never seen it in my life, but I can't think of a single reason why that can't be done. Some people capitalise "Right-wing" as well.
The suffix -most isn't exactly the same as most. It seems to function as a way to provide a superlative to classes of adjectives that can't otherwise have them, such as directions. It seems to be equivalent to "farther to the...". As for capitalizing the political sense of right, most people won't be aware of the distinction, so it will just seem like arbitrary capitalization for no reason. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary has a definition for "leftest". I would never use that word, I would just use "leftmost'. "Leftest" is a word you don't see very often. 97.126.94.240 08:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary aims to have a definition for everything that meets its Criteria for inclusion, whether you or I would ever use it. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
To me, "the most right side" (or edge, etc.) suggests that there are several sides, and we are talking about the side that is further to the right than the other sides. That's different from "the rightmost edge" which is just part of one single edge. Can't explain why but am a native speaker. Equinox 17:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
"Most right" also generally sounds a bit unnatural when you can say "furthest to the right". Equinox 17:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Douay-Rheims Bible uses "most right" in at least two places and "rightest" once, so both appear to be acceptable. That's an old Bible, too, which is a comforting fact. I like relying on history in this as much as possible. In both cases, it is referring to "most correct". Maybe there's something about the context that affects which word the author would have wanted to use, but that's just speculation. "Rightmost" might be a more recent invention, because a search through various versions of the Bible on biblehub.net turns up no results for that particular word. 97.126.94.240 12:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Language changes. If no one is aware of a historical meaning or connotation, they won't understand what you meant to say. If you said something in another language, people would at least know you're using words/senses they don't know. When you use words in their own language that mean something today, they won't know to look them up to find obsolete senses- they'll just assume you're talking strangely or misinterpret what you say.
By the way: please use the Show preview button to check your edit and make changes, then click Publish changes when you're satisfied with it. You're cluttering up the edit history with dozens of minor changes- not to mention making it look like you don't know what you're doing. It's okay to make a correction or two, but dozens is a bit much. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to the expression "words most right"? It's unusual to reverse the order that way nowadays, although sometimes people do that with "central". For example, "Google central" might be Google's headquarters. Given, a lot of people don't know how to use English that way. 97.126.79.153 01:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)