| | :::::::::: Let me rephrase: Do we know that MythBusters ''derived'' its name from Ghostbusters, or is the reference secondary? --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | | :::::::::: Let me rephrase: Do we know that MythBusters ''derived'' its name from Ghostbusters, or is the reference secondary? --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
| | :::::::::: You're no doubt correct about MythBusters and Ghostbusters, but Ghostbusters itself is an example of what I was talking about- so the reference is just one step more indirect. As for Gang busters, the sense you're talking about as in "going gangbusters", etc. is the only ''surviving'' direct reference- but that doesn't mean that it might not have started the other figure of speech way back when. I'm only speculating about its origins, but it's been around for a good number of decades- it was well-established long before Ghostbusters. I'm not absolutely certain it qualifies as a suffix, though it certainly ''feels'' like one to me. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | | :::::::::: You're no doubt correct about MythBusters and Ghostbusters, but Ghostbusters itself is an example of what I was talking about- so the reference is just one step more indirect. As for Gang busters, the sense you're talking about as in "going gangbusters", etc. is the only ''surviving'' direct reference- but that doesn't mean that it might not have started the other figure of speech way back when. I'm only speculating about its origins, but it's been around for a good number of decades- it was well-established long before Ghostbusters. I'm not absolutely certain it qualifies as a suffix, though it certainly ''feels'' like one to me. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | ::::::::::::Also note the usage "it was gangbusters" (indicating success) at [http://books.google.com/books?id=o4Z0MeDQhskC&pg=PA266&dq=%22it+was+gangbusters%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9duXUP_QMOni0gHn1oGAAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA] [http://books.google.com/books?id=Sk-v5juCuCcC&pg=PA77&dq=%22it+was+gangbusters%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9duXUP_QMOni0gHn1oGAAg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCQ] and a veritable slew of other examples, M-W specifically uses it as an adjective for "excellent" and dates the term to 1971 (it is, of course, older). The radio programme was from the 1930s (ending in 1955) and is ''unlikely'' to be a source for a ''current'' usage. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
沒有留言:
張貼留言