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

Basic English[edit]

Wait is on the Basic English list only in its inflected form -- the list is like that sometimes. I'm adding it here to avoid a dangling link on the list, but otherwise I don't see much value in such entries.

There should probably be a standard basic format for such entries, which can be augmented by idiomatic usages, related terms and other pertinent info. -dmh 06:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

RFV archive[edit]

— Beobach 03:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

Rfv-sense: (obsolete) Watching, hence, an ogling. Is this modern English or Middle English? What does OED have to say? DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The OED has the sense "Watching, observation. Obs." Nothing about ogling, though. -- WikiPedant 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Do they give a cite with a date or an author? DCDuring TALK 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, three quotations, all well before Shakespeare: 1377, c1430, and 1526. I've emailed more info to you, but don't want to post their full citations, since it feels too much like a (moral, if not legal) copyright violation. -- WikiPedant 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We still have no quotations of our own to attest to it. Shall it pass or fail? — Beobach 20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I left the "watching" sense but removing "ogling". This shall be put on the talk page as "RFV-archived" rather than passed or failed. — Beobach 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


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.

Tagged but not listed: "The act of staying or remaining in expectation". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep because it has a plural. Equinox 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There's nary an -ing form that can't have a plural. I would prefer that our standard be the existence of a semantic difference of some kind beyond the normal meaning of the -ing form. Thus earnings, losings, and winnings have distinct meanings. In this case I doubt that the meaning given would be attestably distinct from meanings of the -ing form. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I think there are -ing nouns without plurals (I once gave "defragmentings" as an example). Secondly, if we use the standard you suggest, and if the noun has no other sense than the obvious one, how are we supposed to represent it in Wiktionary? Would we have a typical plural noun entry (like kitchenettes) pointing back to a singular... verb? Equinox 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure what we can find some -ing forms that don't have plurals, probably a higher percentage than on ordinary nouns that don't have attestable plurals. The same issue would apply to the possible existence of comparative forms of -ing forms. The underlying problem is the possible repetition of many verb sense reworded to suit the noun or adjective PoS and the need to keep the -ing form coordinated with changes in the verb entry. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
For the definition line perhaps we could use a standard boilerplate, like "Agent noun of verb" sometimes used for verb-er. In any case I don't think the existence of technical hurdles means we should omit valid words. Equinox 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

kept, no consensus. -- Liliana 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)