Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is that IPA pronunciation correct? I guess I'd write it as /ʧuː obsolete or nonstandard characters (ʧ), invalid IPA characters (ʧ), replace ʧ with t͡ʃ/, but I'm neither native nor acknowledgeable in IPA.

/ʧuː obsolete or nonstandard characters (ʧ), invalid IPA characters (ʧ), replace ʧ with t͡ʃ/ is the IPA for "chew". — Hippietrail 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The IPA of two is /tuː/ ... it is pronounced the same as too and to. —Stephen 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But there are some English dialects where it is pronounced /tjuː/ instead. In these dialects, to and too are also pronounced this way. --EncycloPetey 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Green check.svg

This entry has passed Wiktionary's verification process without prejudice.

This means that, while adequate citation may not have been recorded, discussion has concluded that usage is widespread and content is accurate
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion


Adjective, in the sense of "two years of age." Obviously covered by the cardinal number, although I'm not sure what to do with the translations. DAVilla 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this ought to be kept. In answer to the question “how old is your child?”, the answer “two” will not normally imply anything other than “two years (of age)” — not two months, weeks, or whatever. However, I think that all such entries should be taken to RFV, being as they’re not much use, and whoever thinks that they’re worth keeping can go dredge up the requisite three citations for them. That should prevent any slippery-slopiness. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And also three, four, five, up to what? DAVilla 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Up to whatever number is no longer used in such an elliptical sense, or up to the number for which no editor can be bothered searching for citations showing such use — whichever comes first. Think about it — what harm does it do to have such senses listed on Wiktionary? If someone wants to add such obvious words, why not let him? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Better get crackin: [1] [2] [3] Maybe the digits do deserve special treatment as digits rather than numbers, but there's a reason we call it a cardinal rather than a noun and and adjective.
Still no one has suggested what is to be done with the translations. DAVilla 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don’t care anywhere near enough to add these, let alone cite them. AFAIC, the translations are the only good reason for keeping this sense. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about starting a couple of phrasebook entries that can generalize these, for n years old and n-year old? I'm not sure how to title them, however, if "year" is to be omitted. DAVilla 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be preferable, considering that they’re are so completely regular in meaning and unremarkable. Indeed, the problem is in the name — it must be intuitive enough for a person to find it whilst searching for this meaning (to translate, I’d imagine, so we needn’t make it too obvious). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Clearly something like “be n years old” and “n-year old” would work, but “be n”? I don't see how anyone would find that searching. I think they'd almost be more likely to run across it from an appendix article on cardinals. A ===See also=== at year, old, and age would really help. DAVilla 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst the existence of an Appendix:English cardinal numbers with links pointing thither from year, old, and age would indeed be good, due to the issues of translations and where to give an entry for the general rule still not having been resolved, it seems our only option is to allow these senses to exist where and how they presently do. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But is it even an adjective, as it does not describe anything. And why does it have a plural in the entry. Delete.--Dmol 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I can say "My sister is two." The adjective two here means "two years old" and describes my sister. Keep --EncycloPetey 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn’t have a plural though; I can only think of one English adjective (manqué) which has a plural. I’ll go replace it with a proper {{en-adj}} inflexion line. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
erm "manqué" currently only has an entry as the past participle of a French verb... Thryduulf 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A bit hard to cite, but quite fun if the plural works as claimed. DAVilla 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is whence it derives. Thanks for the quotations, DAVilla. I’ve creäted both the singular and the plural entries, and the latter has nine citations. On a surprising note, it seems that most instances of this word’s use do not italicise it — judging from the first page of GBS hits anyhow. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to start with the diereses again?
No, I had to dig through quite a number of hits to find unitalicized examples. Maybe without the accent mark it is common not to italicize, but not with it.
Now to look through the plural endings... DAVilla 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
“Are you going to start with the diereses again?” — I’m unsure if this is meant humorously. But anyway, apart from the diæresis’s more regular uses (naïve, noöne, reëlect), I do, now and again, throw in the odd diacritic or ligature when it can be used (as in archaïc and cohære) — whenever the whim takes me. Your comment, however, spurred me to add creäture, which I hope you will find interesting.
Maybe I was just lucky with the citations — of the first nine I got which used it as a separate word (not as a phrase like actes manqués), ⅔ were unitalicised. However, perhaps citing from a larger sample would change that statistic. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Taking up the tangent of plural adjectives. I've often wondered about sport. Example I have a sports jacket and some sports shoes. Any takers?? -- Algrif 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Not me. If sport were an adjective which agreed in number (by having distinct singular and plural forms), then you would say “sport_ jacket” but “sports jackets” and “sports shoes” but “sport_ shoe”. I’m guessing that that sense of sport is plural because most sports impedimenta are suitable for use for, or are associated with, more than just a single sport. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I partly agree with User:Doremitzwr. Sport jacket, sports jacket, sport jackets and sports jackets are all fine (in their own contexts.) Likewise shoes, sneakers, coats, uniforms, jerseys etc. However, for the adjective sport is is fair to say that it is "usually" the plural form of the noun that is used adjectivally. The elimination of the "s" seems almost phonetic; done only to reduce sibilants? Glancing at the first few here, I don't see a definitive pattern. Except perhaps that the singular is used adjectivally when discussing the larger sport shoe industry as a whole (i.e. non-specific, multiple or abstract.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's the fact that the plural form of the noun sport is most commonly used that really caught my attention. It is almost a rule that noun root adjectives are in singular only. (Eg a five-pound note; not pounds). But it was not much more than a curiosity really. -- Algrif 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We're also in need of an entry for two- (as in a two-part test), though I'm not sure whether we'd want this as an independent entry or not. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge all into one article. There's no reason to have more than one. Connell66 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge all what into one what? The question is about the adjective sense. --EncycloPetey 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge the "Adjective" sense into the Number sense; this is merely one way that cardinal nummbers may be used in Englih, not a separate definition. --EncycloPetey 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The American u[edit]

I do not think that the IPA for this word is correct. The [u] sound of Dutch toe, Spanish tu, French tout, German zu Russian тут are all pretty similar but the sound in American two is less rounded and shifted considerably towards the [y] sound. Isn't there a better rendition of that in IPA? Jcwf 12:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The IPA is correct for GenAm, and most of the US. As noted previously (see the very top of this page), there are some regional dialect(s) that use /tjuː/ (as you note); no-one has done the work yet of identifying it/them. (Brooklyn? ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
At any rate, IPA's /y/ is definitely not a native American English sound... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither is [u]: when singing ,American choirs struggle in producing it when singing other languages. Jcwf I aam a Dutchman living in the US and I do sing16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: November–December 2010[edit]

See Talk:0#RFC discussion: November–December 2010.