Talk:stuff

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Earliest Usenet uses[edit]

Earliest Usenet uses found via Google Groups:

  • stuff (noun): net.periphs - May 12 1981, 4:53 pm by sdcsvax
    The fan-fold stuff is nice because it easily bursts into pages, but the print quality is poor compared to the roll paper.
  • stuffs (verb): net.jokes - Feb 1 1982, 9:55 pm by watmath
    "Got to go, got to get out of town, they all know, it's all blown open", says Artie hastly as he stuffs more shirts into his case.
  • stuffing (verb): net.games - Feb 2 1982, 12:25 am by sdcarl
    When the diver is grabbing some of the treasure it's arm moves back and forth from the treasure chest to the bag it's stuffing it into.
  • stuffing (noun): net.cooks - Feb 6 1982, 10:42 am by eagle
    The stuffing is chopped garlic, mozzarella (sp?), and chopped tomatoes.
  • stuffed (adj): net.cooks - Mar 4 1982, 2:13 pm by genradbo
    B A K E D S T U F F E D C A R I B O U H E A R T
  • stuffing (gerund): net.cooks - Mar 19 1982, 11:09 am by pur-ee
    Stuffing the developer can be a little awkward at first, but you'll get the hang of it with a little practice.
  • stuffed (passive verb): net.cooks - Apr 13 1982, 12:41 pm by azure
    Estimate the amount by guessing at twice the volume of the bird to be stuffed.
  • stuff it (vulgar): net.misc - Jun 13 1982, 10:00 pm by watmath
    If someone calls you a computer addict, chain yourself to your terminal and tell him to stuff it.
  • stuffed (past tense): net.cooks - Jul 2 1982, 8:29 pm by utzoo
    You stuffed the camel with four sheep.
  • stuff's (stuff has): net.flame - Dec 6 1982, 4:29 am by mhuxi
    You Treat eaters don't count -- that stuff's got no class.
  • stuff's (possessive): net.movies - Nov 4 1983, 8:41 am by Wally Dietrich
    Right Stuff's Glenn == Under Fire's Mercenary ??
  • stuffed (past participle): net.religion - Jan 4 1984, 12:25 am by a
    As I say, I don't know myself that the philosophy I've stuffed in a nutshell here is how things really are.
  • stuff's (stuff is): net.cooks - Jan 11 1984, 1:11 pm by Tom Chmara
    Sorry no more information on the model; all the stuff's at home.

The first use of the verb in the infinitive will take more work to find... — Hippietrail 14:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plural stuffs[edit]

The book I'm reading is 150 years old and in it I have encountered the noun stuff used several times in the plural. We do not cover such a sense yet. — Hippietrail 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 Done We have it now. However, we don't mention (usage note perhaps?) that the sense of stuff meaning "things in general" can be pluralised to give it an extra cutesy informal edge: "Whatcha doing? Just some programming stuffs", etc. I think that's quite modern. Equinox ◑ 00:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The Frankish connection is less than certain. The Oxford English Dictionary says, in the Etymology of "stuff" n.1:

The ultimate etymology is obscure. Diez conjectured that the Romance stoffa and the related verb stoffare (stuff v.1) are derived from the Old High German *stopfôn (Middle High German, modern German stopfen) to plug with oakum, which (as explained s.v. stop v.) represents a West Germanic adoption of medieval Latin stuppāre to plug, stop up, < stuppa tow, oakum. This is open to strong objections: the likelihood of a specifically High German etymon for a Common Romance word is questionable, and the original sense of the Romance verb appears to be, not ‘to plug or stop up’, but ‘to garnish or store with something’.

That in turn calls into question any cognate relationship based on derivation from the Frankish word and meaning. I've added this uncertainty to the Etymology section ("possibly"). --Thnidu (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stuffing coke?[edit]

Is there a sense for the verb meaning to "stuff your nose with cocaine"? Thanks, --Ahoraes (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: May–August 2019[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Interjection sense:

  1. (slang) A filler term used to dismiss explanation.
    Why are you so sad, Joseph? – Well… stuff.

Not an interjection, not a filler. Example is an abbreviated form of something like "Well, I'm sad because of 'stuff'", where "stuff" is noun def. #2, "Unspecified things". Mihia (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete. Leasnam (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be the noun. Delete. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


RFV discussion: November–December 2019[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv sense "trivial details". Sure, something described as "stuff", e.g. in "I can't be bothered reading all this stuff", can also be trivial details, but does the word "stuff" itself mean this? Mihia (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you put the RFV tag in the middle of the definition? The full def reads: "(informal) Unspecified things or matters; [RFV tag is here] trivial details. I had to do some stuff." Equinox ◑ 17:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RFV applies only to "trivial details" and not to "Unspecified things or matters". Is that not clear? Mihia (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have approached similar wording problems by separating the part of a definition that I didn't like (eg, "trivial details") into a separate definition and RfVing (or RfDing) the new definition. That would be appropriate if the parts are not synonymous (ie, "trivial details" ≠ "unspecified things or matters"), which seems to me to be the case here. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I separated them for clarity. Mihia (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it now the same as definition 12? "Refuse or worthless matter; hence, also, foolish or irrational language; nonsense; trash" Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. That sense is marked "obsolete". My feeling is that the sense that I have RFV'd was intended as a modern sense, most probably because "stuff" in the sense of "unspecified/miscellaneous things or matters" might be trivial details, though the latter is of course what I wish to test with this RFV. Mihia (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could they have intended the equivalent of "especially, trivial details"? DCDuring (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure even that would be right. My feeling, unless demonstrated otherwise, is that whether it is trivial or not depends solely on the context and is not a property of the word "stuff" itself: "I can't be bothered reading all this stuff -- it's not important" / "I really ought to read all this stuff as it's important." Mihia (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But if there were attestation of something like just|only|mere stuff, that would suggest that some writers thought of stuff as unimportant, unless context indicates that importance was not the characteristic of stuff being valued. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, I would say that unimportance is conveyed by the words "just", "only" or "mere", not the word "stuff" itself. You could put those words in front of various nouns with similar effect. Mihia (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring "These are words. Do they matter?" / "These are just words. Do they matter?" Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that citations using just, only, and mere modifying stuff may provide evidence that stuff is used in a way that indicates it has a negative valence. Such usage may not support "trivial details" in particular, but may support something worth adding to a definition line, if not a full definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, although "stuff" may be trivial, which is why it is left unspecified, there is no support for including it as part of the definition. Kiwima (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: November–December 2019[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

"To fill with seasoning." isn't that just a form of "To fill a space with (something) in a compressed manner." ? I could be wrong and I'd agree the noun stuffing needs this sense, but I'm not so sure about the verb. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wouldn't stuff a chicken with feathers, nor would you stuff a cushion with seasoning. I would say keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz you also wouldn't stuff a drawer with motor oil. So..? Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So read this. DonnanZ (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I vote weak keep because it seems quite a specific usage, but on the other hand, I wonder logically what the difference is between stuffing a turkey (implied to be with seasoning) and stuffing a cushion (implied to be with padding), and why, on the same basis, we would not add a sense "To fill with padding". Mihia (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will just point out that stuffing is more than just seasoning. Nothing wrong with having a cooking specific definition, but some dictionaries get by with a more generic definition of stuffing with "suitable" or "appropriate" material in any case. -Mike (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can stuff a turkey with a duck, bell peppers with ground beef and rice, and mushrooms with spinach. Usually the stuffing will be seasoned, but it is IMO incorrect to state that in culinary use to stuff means “to fill with seasoning”. It can be basically anything that is edible – which is not inherent in the term stuff per se, but an obvious consequence of the culinary context.  --Lambiam 23:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about the comments, I suppose the difference is this: when you talk about "a stuffed drawer", you don't know what's in there. When you ask "Can you stuff this drawer?", it's unclear what the drawer should be stuffed with. The sentence doesn't even make much sense without context. When you speak of "a stuffed turkey", it's clear this doesn't concern a turkey stuffed with socks. When you ask "Can you stuff this turkey?", it's clear the turkey should be stuffed with something edible and not with plastic spoons. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may know that Santa will stuff your stocking without knowing what you’ll find in there the next morning, other than that it is (hopefully!) something you will enjoy. In all cases and contexts, it is most likely something that is appropriate to the circumstances, but that is not guaranteed. The sentence “You won’t believe what she used to stuff the turkey with!” is entirely understandable and proper English, but if true you have no idea what went in there (unless you’ve been searching for your pet rat all day). The current definition is wrong, and if made correct becomes obviously SOP. Therefore, Delete (but perhaps represent this by an apt usex).  --Lambiam 06:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambiam. Canonicalization (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stuffing a turkey is a different process than stuffing a cushion: you put stuffing in the turkey so that the stuffing and the meat can interact with each other during cooking, while you stuff a cushion to fill its interior space with a substance having the correct mechanical properties. I've stuffed a turkey with nothing more than a lemon, a bay leaf, some garlic, and some sage, then thrown out the herbs after cooking because they'd accomplished their purpose. Stuffing a turkey with regular stuffing allows the juices from the turkey to flavor and moisten the stuffing and the seasonings in the stuffing to flavor the turkey. In other words, stuffing a turkey is only called "stuffing" by analogy with the stuffing of a cushion. There's also a sort of stuffing where you insert a filling into a food item, but that's different, IMO, from stuffing a turkey (you end up with "stuffed bell peppers", but you don't end up with "stuffed turkey") . Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a specific cooking term. You stuff a turkey; you don't cram a turkey, or pack a turkey (in that sense), or even fill a turkey. This is lexically important. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox fun fact: in Dutch, you would. Gevulde kalkoen. (gevulde kalkoen) Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Equinox and Chuck. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said when I started this discussion, I could be wrong. And it appears that indeed I was. But I'm happy I now understand why I was wrong. - Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was deleted, you can't prevent another editor reinstating it as a missing sense. DonnanZ (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a peculiar kind of comment. Individual editors cannot unilaterally override an RFD decision, so in such a situation the entry would just be re-deleted if no new argument or evidence was put forth. Mihia (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reword the definition without the words seasoning or stuffing. A usage example without turkey or other fowl would be nice. One can find stuffed pancakes, stuffed mashed potatoes, etc though the definition need not cover every attestable collocation of stuff and a food item. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Canonicalization (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: November 2019–August 2020[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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 sense 12:

1. (transitive) To fill by packing or crowding something into; to cram with something; to load to excess.
I'm going to stuff this pillow with feathers.
2. (transitive) To fill a space with (something) in a compressed manner.
He stuffed his clothes into the closet and shut the door.
....
12. (transitive) To form or fashion by packing with the necessary material.
  • Jonathan Swift
An Eastern king put a judge to death for an iniquitous sentence, and ordered his hide to be stuffed into a cushion, and placed upon the tribunal.

Sense 12 quotation and definition are mismatched, but whichever way round it's supposed to be, it seems redundant to senses 1/2 ... unless we want to make a distinction between forming/fashioning something by stuffing and other types of stuffing?? If deleted, quotation can be moved to sense 2. Mihia (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation is ambiguous; the judge’s skin could have been used as the filling of a cushion, or it could have served as the cushion case, to be stuffed with horse hair or whatever. I assume that Swift, in his letter to the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Molesworth, meant the latter, which is confirmed by the original account of Herodotus in Histories 5.25.2 (and Samuel Johnson agrees). So then poor Sisamnes’s hide was indeed fashioned into a cushion, meaning there is no mismatch. I think it does make sense to make a distinction between the senses of “forming/fashioning by stuffing” and of stuffing without the objective of giving form.  --Lambiam 12:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, looking again, I think you may be correct. In ordinary modern usage, if something is "stuffed into a cushion" it means that that thing becomes the stuffing, but it seems that this may not be the intended meaning in this quotation. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, it seems to me that, if the quotation read "stuffed and made into a cushion", it would be the usual sense 1. The pillow is stuffed with feathers; his hide is stuffed with whatever. So the distinctiveness of this usage is perhaps the phrase "stuffed into" rather than the verb "stuff" per se. Mihia (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete Discussion has been stale for nine months and no one other than the nominator has expressed a deletion opinion Purplebackpack89 12:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As pertaining to garments[edit]

What about the verb sense of filling a garment into the shape it would have if it were being worn, to protect it in storage? Is that specific enough to mention? Ran across this usage:

When silk organza remains folded in the same place for any length of time, it will split on the fold. If you can stuff it before storing in the future, that will reduce additional damage.

From https://forums.vintagefashionguild.org/threads/repair-tips-for-splits-in-sheer-fabric.26303/

I tried searching books in the Internet Archive for uses, but was having trouble finding any that weren't the noun as a type of fabric.

(From that same page is also a sense of the word shatter apparently not in Wiktionary; also discussed somewhat at http://circavintageclothing.com.au/2013/06/05/shattering-silk/.)

Goldenshimmer (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the expression "stuff and nonsense"[edit]

It seems to me the expression "stuff and nonsense", fairly common in archaic or intentionally dated-sounding texts, usually in conversation, could be useful to mention here somewhere. Possibly in connection with sense #11 (was it?) where one of the senses of "stuff" actually *is* "nonsense". Metafnord (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion: November 2021[edit]

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

rfv-sense: A melted mass of turpentine, tallow, etc., with which the masts, sides, and bottom of a ship are smeared for lubrication. MooreDoor (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems genuine and is listed here. It could be obsolete. Is it definitely for lubrication? Mihia (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:stuff&oldid=64873337"