Talk:take slave
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Definitely non-standard, IMO. DonnanZ (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- hi @DonnanZ, i added three more quotations, ranging from 1731 to 2018. what do you think needs to be changed? --Habst (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- fixed ping: @Donnanz. --Habst (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- We need to have attestation of forms other than taken slave. Is this always in the passive? DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- We need to be careful that active uses of "taking slave" / "takes slave" etc aren't typos for "taking slaves". DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Being careful, I've only found one instance of [TAKE] slave that is not the form taken slave. I haven't found instances of taken slave that are not passive. There are a limited number of nouns that can occupy the slot held by slave. The ones that come to mind are hostage, prisoner, and captive. These could all be construed as the Ys in take X as Y, but the latter form can take many other Ys, such as wife, husband, mistress, partner, student, tutor. Are take prisoner, take hostage, and take captive sufficiently unusual syntactically, because of the omission of as, to be dictionary-worthy? Take slave seems to me to be better at taken slave. DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring thank you for this explanation. i haven't done a lot of research yet, but this article was very interesting to me and it references a study from 2012 that might shed more light on "take slave". --Habst (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- The article suggests that take prisoner has evolved in a way that take slave has not. The various institutions (slavery, hostage-giving, hostage-taking, captivity, taking and holding of prisoners) have had their own history. I am struck by how take/hold hostage seems to have lost all specificity of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring thank you for this explanation. i haven't done a lot of research yet, but this article was very interesting to me and it references a study from 2012 that might shed more light on "take slave". --Habst (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Being careful, I've only found one instance of [TAKE] slave that is not the form taken slave. I haven't found instances of taken slave that are not passive. There are a limited number of nouns that can occupy the slot held by slave. The ones that come to mind are hostage, prisoner, and captive. These could all be construed as the Ys in take X as Y, but the latter form can take many other Ys, such as wife, husband, mistress, partner, student, tutor. Are take prisoner, take hostage, and take captive sufficiently unusual syntactically, because of the omission of as, to be dictionary-worthy? Take slave seems to me to be better at taken slave. DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- We need to be careful that active uses of "taking slave" / "takes slave" etc aren't typos for "taking slaves". DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- We need to have attestation of forms other than taken slave. Is this always in the passive? DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
RFV-passed. There are three cites that do not use the form taken slave. Kiwima (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (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 taken slave. The forms take slave, takes slave, and taking slave appear unlikely to meet RfV. take slave is already at RfV; the other two forms are redlinks at this time. DCDuring (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring take slave passed RFV, so as far as I can see this discussion is now moot. I'm marking it as resolved accordingly. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 02:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)