The pletora of longworded definitions make this article extremely cumbersome. Furthermore is looks like an incomplete merger of 2 separate articles...
Prime candidates for merging are:
- 1 & 17 and possibly 18
- To work for; to labor in behalf of; to exert one's self continuously or statedly for the benefit of; to do service for; to be in the employment of, as an inferior, domestic, serf, slave, hired assistant, official helper, etc.; specifically, in a religious sense, to obey and worship.
- To be a servant or a slave; to be employed in labor or other business for another; to be in subjection or bondage; to render menial service.
- To perform domestic offices; to be occupied with household affairs; to prepare and dish up food, etc.
- 6 & 19:
- To perform the duties belonging to, or required in or for; hence, to be of use to; as, a curate may serve two churches; to serve one's country.
- To be in service; to do duty; to discharge the requirements of an office or employment. Specifically, to act in the public service, as a soldier, seaman. etc.
- 11 & 12
- To bring to notice, deliver, or execute, either actually or constructively, in such manner as the law requires; as, to serve a summons.
- To make legal service opon (a person named in a writ, summons, etc.); as, to serve a witness with a subpeona.
And possibly more...--sanna 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
Rfd-redundant: (intransitive) To be in service; to do duty; to discharge the requirements of an office or employment. Specifically, to act in the public service, as a soldier, seaman. etc.
Just a few lines up, we have the sense "(transitive) To perform the duties belonging to, or required in or for; hence, to be of use to." The usexes given suggest that these two are the same. It can probably be used both in intransitive and transitive forms. -- Prince Kassad 10:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and this is not the only redundancy in the entry. Actually, somebody has posted a request for clean-up of the whole. Who would want to give it a try? --Hekaheka 14:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Unabridged dictionaries rarely combine transitive and intransitive uses into a single sense, except for rare or obsolete senses. This is a typical Websters 1913 entry with what Visviva called "cobwebs" (semicolons, many circumlocutions for the same sense, mini-usexes introduced by "as" in the sense line, dashes}. User:Visviva/Cobwebs has four lists. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to close this here and deal with it under the existing RFC request. Ƿidsiþ 06:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)