Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.svg

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.


Rfd-redundant "Of a penis, erect" redundant to "Of an object, rigid, hard to bend, inflexible".​—msh210 (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They're really quite different senses. Though the logic behind them is the same, what exactly happens and in what contexts it might be used is not obvious. Thus I think the differentiations are very important, especially for ESL learners. ---> Tooironic 09:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
...and similar to wet which applies both to an object being filled with moisture and a women's sexual arousal. ---> Tooironic 09:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the sense relating to "he became stiff" is needed because it implies penis without saying penis - this sense is just the most common sense of stiff - delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Tooironic's arguments about stiff and wet, also they can be used about the persons as if their whole body is stiff or wet (e.g. "he is stiff", "she is wet"). In Russian (normally) they won't even translate as adjectives. Although this meaning are easily understood by native English speakers (by extension), they do cause problems to ESL learners. Keep this sense and add a translation gloss to match the number of senses. --Anatoli 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Then it should be "of a person", not "of a penis". bd2412 T 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What bd said.​—msh210 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It's also what I said. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that: then I misunderstood you the first time, Martin. I thought you were saying that a (currently nonexistent) "(of a person)" sense would pass but the current one fails, whereas I thought bd was saying that the current sense passes (but must be reworded). (The difference between those is that if no one bothers to reword it, then does the current one get scrapped or not? According to the way I understood you, yes; according to bd, no: it will sit there until it is reworded.)​—msh210 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realise we lack that sense. Perhaps I should read the f'k'n entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to contradict "painful" sense that applies to parts of the body, so keep. DAVilla 05:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Or at least amend other sense to refer strictly to muscles, if that would be correct. DAVilla 05:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept for no consensus to delete.--Jusjih 14:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)