| ← Older revision | Revision as of 17:45, 4 October 2011 |
| Line 140: | Line 140: |
| | :::Re: "Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries." We're working on it <code>:o)</code>. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | | :::Re: "Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries." We're working on it <code>:o)</code>. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC) |
| | ::::Note, moved to toned per 2010 vote. Not closing, though. Re Dan, as we know CFI doesn't exempt single words without spaces from being idiomatic. Perhaps this is one of the useful biproducts of that rule (or lack of rule, I should say). [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) | | ::::Note, moved to toned per 2010 vote. Not closing, though. Re Dan, as we know CFI doesn't exempt single words without spaces from being idiomatic. Perhaps this is one of the useful biproducts of that rule (or lack of rule, I should say). [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
| - | | |
| - | == <s>[[systemic consistency]]</s> == | |
| - | | |
| - | Doesn't seem to actually mean anything. [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | | |
| - | Keep, as per [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=systemic+consistency&btnG=Search+Books Google Books], looks like direct translation from German [[Systemkonsistenz]] [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=Systemkonsistenz&btnG=Search+Books Google Books] [http://www.google.de/search?q=Systemkonsistenz Google DE] [[User:Mutante|Mutante]] 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | :Definition is garbage mind you. Can we get a comprehensible definition for it, then reopen the RFD if necessary. Add {{temp|rfdef}} or speedy and wait for a definition. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | | |
| - | '''speedied''' as it doesn't have a proper definition. Can return once it gets one. -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 20:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC) | |
| | | | |
| | == [[mammale]] == | | == [[mammale]] == |
| Line 163: | Line 154: |
| | | | |
| | ::The [[w:la:Mammalia]] is helpful here, as it points out that Linnaean taxonomy first adopted the term in 1758, but used as the plural adjectival form ''mammaliorum''. So, any support for the noun would have to come from citations of the last 250 years. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | | ::The [[w:la:Mammalia]] is helpful here, as it points out that Linnaean taxonomy first adopted the term in 1758, but used as the plural adjectival form ''mammaliorum''. So, any support for the noun would have to come from citations of the last 250 years. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) |
| - | | |
| - | == <s>[[I knew someone when]]</s> == | |
| - | | |
| - | I think phrases like "I knew him when he was just a mailman" aren't idioms, they just have the literal meanings of the words. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | :You have put up a [[straw man]] to argue against. The citations do not have a single instance of the "when" being followed by a clause in the non-idiomatic fashion. OTOH it is quite possible that the idiomatic expression is not heard in the UK. | |
| - | :Though it might be possible to argue that this is a "mere" ellipsis, with "when" functioning anaphorically or deictically, and is therefore always understood as such without being idiomatic, the same argument could be made for many idioms, including those currently in [[:Category:English ellipses]]. Even this argument does not hold for some uses of the term. The expression can be used without reference to any specific event or period whether mentioned or inferable from context, just some time in the past when speaker and "someone" were both alive and speaker was aware. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | ::To quote (or at worst paraphrase you) "explain how this meets CFI". The citations are varied, undoubtedly, but in the end just refer to knowing some in the past. Seems we need a third opinon here, c'mon [[wade in]]. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | :::For it to be SoP, the first requirement would be that {{term|when}} have the sense of "then" in contemporary English in phrases other than this one. In fact, it ought to to have a sense of "long ago" or "before {someone) became famous/successful/powerful/rich". If it has that sense in any one other attestable expression (three cites) or two different expressions, then we should add {{term|when#Adverb||at a former and usually less prosperous time}}. I am unwilling to spend time citing it when I have only heard and read this sense of "when" in this context. Perhaps "back when." or "remember|remembers|remembering|remembered X when." can be found. | |
| - | :::In any event, this dictionary does not have the relevant sense of "when". [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |
| - | '''Keep'''. The phrase when used as a stand-alone is idiomatic. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:lightgreen">''bd2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) | |
| - | :I didn't know about the stand alone form (which has since been supported by citations). Move to keep immediately; this rfd has been open for 11 months now. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC) | |
| - | | |
| - | '''move to keep, do not pass go, do not collect $200''' -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) | |
| | | | |
| | == [[punch]] == | | == [[punch]] == |
沒有留言:
張貼留言