Talk:these kingdoms

these kingdoms

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.

---

Definition:

1. (obsolete, figurative) the United Kingdom, considered as a union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland

I'm not so sure that the presence of a non-kingdom in the list (Ireland) renders this idiomatic, so I thought I'd run it by everyone here. I especially wonder if this is a set phrase, or just a concept that could be expressed in various ways. I admit, this is borderline, so I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if no one else sees any problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At the time that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, Ireland was a separate kingdom too. However, the quotes date from a time when there was only one kingdom: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so I would regard it idiomatic to use the plural "these kingdoms" to refer to a single kingdom. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker (even if using the phrase to refer to a unitary set including the speaker, without naming them)? P Aculeius (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. How is the use in the citations different from these United States, this green and verdant land, this community? They all seem like simple deixis to me. DCDuring TALK 09:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• It's tricky to decide whether to have entries for these sorts of euphemisms. A little while ago, I considered creating an entry for "these islands" (a chiefly Irish term for the British Isles), but it's hard to argue that it's not just "these" "islands". If there are citations where "these kingdoms" isn't being used by someone in the UK, I'd keep. I tried searching for "these kingdoms" + America, but didn't find anything obvious. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. In agreement with DCDuring and P Aculeius. Example from the Bible. Daniel 2:44 - It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever. - I don't think Daniel was referring to the UK here. -- ALGRIF talk 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't be idiomatic; just questioning whether there's any grounds for believing that it is. For instance, is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"? P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• If plural "these kingdoms" is referring to a single kingdom, that is idiomatic, like "these parts". The fact that the phrase may also be used non-idiomatically is perhaps grounds for adding {{&lit}} but not for deleting the idiomatic sense. "these kingdoms" would only be used within the UK, which makes it deictic but does not stop it being an idiom. (green and pleasant land is a quotation not an idiom.) Jnestorius (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

From reading the above comments, I'm not sure the pro-delete voters understand the intended sense. That would be a reason for improving the wording of the definition, but not for deletion. I don't think a foreigner standing in England in 1870 and hearing someone say "blah blah blah these kingdoms blah blah" would be able to work out what was being referred to. Jnestorius (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself alone, I feel confident that I understand the intention. However, I think that a foreigner in England in 1870 would understand this kingdom to refer to England or the United Kingdom, and these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker. Who could perhaps be referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland, or to the United Kingdom and Spain, or Denmark, or Belgium, or the Netherlands, or Norway and Sweden, etc. Which group the speaker intended would have to be indicated by context; even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing. Was "these kingdoms" generally treated as a proper noun? That would support the meaning in question. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If we keep this we need to point out that it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker
  • applied to a set of kingdoms is {{&lit}}, but applied to a single kingdom is idiom.
• these sorts of euphemisms
  • I think "grandiloquence" or "pomposity" would be a more exact description than "euphemism"
• How is the use in the citations different from these United States
  • There are multiple states in the United States; there is only one kingdom in trhe United Kingdom. Referring to the USA as "these republics" or "these federations" would be analogous to "these kingdoms" in its unexpected use of the plural.
• this green and verdant land, this community // it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. //
  • Yes, it's deictic, but it can be deictic and an idiom. They are not incompatible characteristics. See for example yours truly, your man, in this day and age, here you go. In fact, if it was a simple deixis, one might expect "those kingdoms" to work outside the UK; the fact that it doesn't suggests something more subtle is going on.
• is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"?
  • I'm not sure what you're driving at. In the given usage, the speaker is only standing in one kingdom and referring to one kingdom. Someone who was under the illusion that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms might arrive at the correct interpretation by accident. Someone who knew they were a single kingdom might guess that the speaker was using some kind of poetic licence, just as one might guess the meaning of any unfamiliar word from the context.
• "these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker"
  • but there are no others and the speaker has not identified any.
• even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing
  • well, some context to be sure the speaker was not describing any group of kingdoms. True of any {{&lit}} expression. Or any expression at all really, for small values of "some" context.

Jnestorius (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. The nominator is "not so sure", and there are several equivocal commenters between the three clear "delete" votes. bd2412 T 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I find the closure problematic since there is not a single boldface keep. Can User:Angr, User:Jnestorius, User:Smurrayinchester, and User:Equinox post clear boldface stances, if any? It would make administration so much easier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Abstain. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Jnestorius (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete basically because of deixis. Equinox ◑ 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Since no-one presented any useful quotes showing idiomatic use, delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no interest in closing this again. Clearly the additional comments lean more heavily towards deletion, but perhaps someone else can address that formality. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Chuck, could you perhaps delete the entry as the nominator if you agree with me that the consensus is to delete? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)