text:
Talk:my ass

Tea room discussion
Wakablogger has added a pronoun sense to this entry. The entry seems valid, as does his ass (and presumably your ass, etc.) However, do these all merit their own pages, or is this just a metonymic use of ass? If so, then the information should be located at ass instead of as separate entries, yes? --EncycloPetey 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It had never occurred to me to look at the expressions that way. My principal wish is that each and every form, when entered in the search box, lead the user directly to a meaningful entry. That might need redirects if it is all to appear at ass without that entry becoming cluttered, but any approach with that result seems OK.
 * But it seems to me that each of these is a synonym for the corresponding -self pronoun. Is the only difference that the -self pronouns are spelled solid and the ass pronouns are not? DCDuring TALK 01:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * There's the additional problem that my ass: is also an interjection, so a redirect is out of the question. (This is one reason we frown on redirects; they complicate things) --EncycloPetey 01:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The more I roll them around in my auditory loop, the more I recollect their use every person, singular and plural, as subject and object, and the "better" they sound. The whole set of them seem warranted. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * These are genuine pronouns, acting AFAIK in all cases: subject, object, genitive with (and possibly without) 's, and reflexive. Though the reflexives may have special rules, a sentence like "I saw m'ass in the mirror" seems perfectly fine. One test as pronouns is that the ass series of pronouns can be substituted for their corresponding standard pronoun versions (there might be a few exceptions such as with reflexives): "I saw him" -> "M'ass saw his ass". For discussion of the ass pronouns in linguistics see, for example, http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/semgroup/archive/2002/beavers_akg.html. I haven't added "her ass," "our ass," "they ass" or "youse ass" because I'm not familiar enough with them to be confident in their definition and sample sentences.Wakablogger 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Is there an English language grammar that explicitly lists these kind of constructs as pronouns, other than some some academic papers? --Ivan Štambuk 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * If you're asking for a prescriptivist source, probably not. My understanding is that Wiktionary is not a prescriptivist resource. Wakablogger 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Ivan is saying nothing favoring prescriptivism, I think, rather that we like to have items that are broadly accepted, not bleeding edge. The obvious other analysis of the "ass" words offers a perfectly acceptable view. It would be perfectly reasonable for the entries to be challenged as Sum of Parts under our Criteria for Inclusion WT:CFI. Most dictionaries don't devote as much space to "vulgarities" as we do, so it may not be possible to readily find evidence of broad acceptance. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, to me the explanation boils down to "1+1 is a numeral just because it can be substituted with 2 in every usage context of the latter". one's ass is just a phrase whose non-SoP meaning has pronominal function, but I wouldn't go as far to call it a "pronoun" by itself. The class of lexical category of pronouns is a very fixed and narrow one, and has been changing in the grammars for many years. Moreover, one's ass is not really synonymous with real pronouns, because is obviously stylistically marked and not used formally. ass is just the metonymic of the object of reference, and one's part is there to provide the "flexibility" of appearing in every context the real pronouns can. The ass part also restricts it's usage to animate humanoid objects who have "the ass".
 * As EP point's out, it's very unfortunate these can't be redirected to universal one's ass entry. Putting the separate entries of my ass, your ass etc. to me seems to be Sum-of-Parts of of the one's + ass meaning by extension "the person of reference". So I'd put it under the ass:. But then again, this is used so idiomatically and there is a limited number of usage forms that it might be good to create all the separate entries. And of course, variants such as your stinking ass and similar. --Ivan Štambuk 13:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Also popular, at least in Texas, is his dying ass (or my, your, etc.). It’s more emphatic. —Stephen 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed, quite a range of adjectives can be inserted between the determiner and the noun; heck, alone gets roughly 256 independent hits on Google. There seem to be two problems here: first, that undefined: etc. do not belong to any part of speech (they're determined noun phrases, or determiner phrases, depending on your definitions), and we're completely incompetent when it comes to those (we generally just "round to the nearest" part of speech, in this case probably ===Noun===); and second, that these are not fixed or indivisible series of words, and we can't very well include every possible variant. Neither problem is insurmountable — no problem is — but this isn't the first time they've come up, and we haven't yet found a satisfactory solution. We need one, badly. —Ruakh TALK 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * As Ivan and DCDuring point out, the call to academic papers is not a descriptive/prescriptive issue. Descriptivism affects whether the entries are listed, but it has very little bearing on what part of speech we give to entries.  Unlike traditional English pronouns, these noun phrases can be modified by adjectives (as shown in Ivan and Stephen's examples, as well as Back off before I knock your ugly ass out, and, I ran my black ass home.).  We already list some more traditional noun phrases as pronouns, including your grace:, your Honor:, Your Highness:, Your Majesty:, and His Majesty:.  Some of those phrases can be modified by a limited set of adjectives (royal:, etc.), though, so I'm not sure where to draw the line between pronoun and noun phrase.  Since there is some question, we should look to grammar publications to tell us what part of speech title to give these phrases.  Rod (A. Smith) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found this discussion interesting (and surprising as I thought this was very straight-forward), but I still feel the ass series is a clear set of pronouns in English. I have three comments in response to the discussion above.

"Get your ass out of bed," is an expression I grew up with and I consider metonymic. However, the use of ass pronouns has grown and people generally now understand them to be pronominal. Because of the derivation, there are borderline cases, but I think it's generally clear which is which (and more so in conversation than on the written page).

My note about substitution is not about whether "1 + 1" can be substituted for 2, it is a diagnostic test for pronouns. Another diagnostic is that pronouns cannot generally be modified. So, "lazy your ass" passes that text, though others have comments "your lazy ass." My opinion is that "your lazy ass" is metonymic, though there might be cases that are hard to pin down.

Style (or register) should not be a consideration as to whether these are pronouns. Pronouns in English with such marking include youse guys and y'all.

Here is further evidence of these being called pronouns by experts and by Urban Dictionary: http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/semgroup/archive/2002/beavers_akg.html http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jtb44/georgetown-handout-working.pdf http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/andrewkg/ass.final.pdf http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ling.2006.37.3.503

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=your+ass Wakablogger 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Well, if Wiktionary choses to format every pronominal expression as ===Pronoun===, then your ass certainly is also a ===Pronoun=== (just as your grace: and others are). But both PDFs you gave links to, when talking about the "pronoun" category of your ass, use the local definition of it ("universal pronoun" and pronominality with respect to the properties of pronominal typology of discussion). The first one even explicitly states: "There is no standard non-theory-internal definition for a pronoun.".
 * Since things like your ass are not ever likely to enter normal English grammar books, it would be nice to somehow keep them separate from real pronouns.
 * However, I still think it would be wrong to say that you is synonymous with your ass (by same logic it would be synonymous with your grace, your majesty - but those all are not directly mutually interchangeable because of the additional semantics they carry and which is absent in real pronouns). --Ivan Štambuk 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * When I'm writing and seeking a synonym, I like to have options such as your grace available to me. That's what a thesaurus is for! If I'm writing a book with urban youth talking, having your ass as a synonym makes a thesaurus a much better resource. There's nothing wrong with adding a label.

 * The other day, I added the Japanese ondore as a translation for the second pronoun you. Ondore basically translates as the f-word, but grammatically it's the second person pronoun, so I added a label of vulgar to it. When a Japanese screenwriter is looking for a synonym for you for a gangster, the inclusion of ondore might very well be of use.

 * I think the use of the word "real" is argumentative; as ISS himself points out, linguists seem to agree that there's no universally accepted definition of pronouns. Moreover, using standard English textbooks as the way to draw the distinction is prescriptionist as I pointed out earlier. Additionally, that the claim that "additional semantics" are "absent in real pronouns" fails to address pronouns such as youse guys and y'all. Wakablogger 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Unfortunately, as long as there is no universally accepted definition of a pronoun, using the definition of it by standard English grammar books is the only way to draw the distinction between real pronouns, and pronominal phrases that are only interesting in academic scenarios. I would like to also express fears that treating these like pronouns gets propagated to other languages via translations, because expressions like your ass and your grace are present in many variations in many languages. --Ivan Štambuk 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The tools linguists use to assign part of speech are internal grammatical intuition and diagnostics. Grammar books are not considered reliable.

 * If you ask people who use the ass series (such as myself), you will find that at least a significant percentage of them have internal grammatical intuition that they are pronouns.

 * I am open to considering diagnostics; however, I believe that the usefulness of classifying the ass series as pronouns has been adequately demonstrated and that failing to classify them as such would be a disservice to users of Wiktionary. Wakablogger 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * As far as the the topics that are a matter of consensus/agreement and not of rigorous scientific definition are concerned, the tools that professional linguists use might as well be labeled as original research :)
 * Their semantic quality is pronominal, but I'd personally feel very uncomfortable formatting a NP that would undergo usual nominal declension as a ====Pronoun===. For once, it would be the first "pronoun" ever to have vocative case forms :)
 * These kind of "diagnostic" tests are completely misleading IMHO, especially in English where there are very little flexion markers preserved. You can e.g. substitute the real adjective marine: with attributive usage of sea: in lots of contexts, but that doesn't make sea: any more of an adjective. Same with your ass vs. you.
 * I do agree that removing it would be a disservice to the users of Wiktionary, but I still have a strong feeling that all these pronominals need to have detailed ====Usage notes==== explaining context of usage, the position of traditional grammars, their individual relationship to real pronouns and a Wiktionary workaround practice of using ===Pronoun=== for both real pronouns and (idiomatic) pronominal phrases. --Ivan Štambuk 04:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I can see using a hyperlink to an article in Wikipedia to explain items like the position of traditional grammars and the controversy as to whether such items are pronouns or not (I don't understand how templates work, but perhaps something like that would work as well). More than anything, such an explanation would be of service to people seeking information on them. (Such a Wikipedia article sounds like an article I'd like to read as well.)
 * In terms of quantity, I can think of only about twenty items that are not generally covered in a traditional treatment of pronouns: the royal pronouns (we, your grace, etc.), dialectical/sociolectical pronouns (y'all, youse guys, probably a few more), archaic pronouns still in use (thou, ye), foreign pronouns (perhaps only moi is current) and a few special words like baby and doggy used to avoid using he/she (When baby is crying...). How many more might there be?
 * I'm not sure what a "Wiktionary workaround practice" refers to. If there are a lot of these pronominal expressions, is a new part of speech such as quasi-pronoun reasonable? I think it possible that baby/doggy are quasi-pronouns, though in this case, I'd prefer that the ass series be classified as both pronoun and quasi-pronoun with usage notes explaining their status. Wakablogger 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Again, it would be misleading to call these nouns/NPs pronouns (that's what they really are!) just because the semantics of their surface realization is pronominal in character (metonymic of noun component). It's as misleading as to call sea in sea people or sea food an adjective, just because they qualify a noun and because they can be substituted with real adjective (you'd be surprised how many folks - even native English speakers - add ===Adjective=== definition for attributive noun usages here on Wiktionary). Archaic/obsolete pronouns are real pronouns - but not of modern, standard English. "Foreign" pronouns as present an interesting discussion point, but are irrelevant for the treatment of one's ass series.
 * When speaking of "Wiktionary workaround practice", I was referring to the fact that, if these are chosen to be formatted as ===Pronoun===s, it would be good to emphasize that it's not because they are generally accepted as real pronouns, but as a workaround scheme (in the absence of a better alternative). So far, I'm inclined to either to format format all these as ===Noun===s, or with some quasi-pronoun PoS header as ===Pronominal===, or with a context label . These kinds of quasi-pronouns are limited in number, highly idiomatic in usage and all of them probably merit inclusion in all of their variant forms. --Ivan Štambuk 13:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Other than the +/-pronoun status of the ass series, I think I pretty much agree with everything. As I mentioned earlier, I also think there has to be some sort of link between the traditional pronouns and the ass series as well as the other pronouns. I have no problem with labeling those as related terms instead of synonyms.
 * As to the syntax of the ass series, perhaps running diagnostics is the best solution. I could dig through my boxes and find a linguistics text that gives diagnostics for pronouns, I'm sure. There is a prohibition, though, on Wikipedia and probably Wiktionary about doing individual research, and I don't know if that would be a violation (even if it is an acceptable solution).
 * Other than that, would it work to create subcategories within pronoun such as foreign, archaic, debated, etc.? Wakablogger 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * I don't think we should bill them as ===Pronoun===, but if we include them, I have no problem with listing them as ====Synonyms==== of the personal pronouns (provided they're tagged ). Synonyms aren't always the exact same part of speech. Certainly ====Synonyms==== seems more accurate than ====Related terms====, as the latter is about etymology rather than meaning. —Ruakh TALK 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * So far, a number of reasons for not including the ass series in the category of pronoun has been raised, but they all seem prescriptivist or else for reasons that have not been supported in the ensuing discussion--at least nobody has responded to my responses in a way that seems convincing. For example, I responded to the claim that pronouns are not marked for additional semantic meaning (slang, etc.) by saying that y'all and youse guys do so, and no further evidence has been presented on this. Some evidence such as that pronouns are not subject to modification has been presented (your ugly ass), though again, nobody has responded to my claim that these do appear to be metonymic but separate from the ass series under discussion.
 * There has been an objection to diagnostic tests because of original research and for the reason that they are "misleading." The latter is a questionable claim as diagnostics are the standard way of determining parts of speech for nouns, adjectives, pronouns, etc., in linguistics; moreover, there are many tests that can be performed beyond what has been mentioned here.
 * Absent using diagnostics, however, to sum: there is literature in the links above demonstrating that the ass series is considered to be pronouns by at least some linguists and the Urban Dictionary, and, other than the absence in traditional grammars, so far no external documents or other evidence has been presented demonstrating they are not considered pronouns. Does anyone have objective evidence that points to the ass series as not being pronouns or some other objective evidence that should be considered here? Are there any objective reasons for not classifying these as pronouns? Wakablogger 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Your prescriptivist comment does not make sense to me. It would be prescriptive to tell readers not to use these phrases, or that they are not “proper” English, but whether we call them pronouns or noun phrases has nothing to do with prescriptivism so far as I can tell.  Have I misunderstood you?  Rod (A. Smith) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Traditional grammar prescribes which words are pronouns. Linguists use diagnostics and internal grammar to provide evidence as to which words are pronouns, which is a description. Wakablogger 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Ah, I see what you're saying. That's not what's usually meant by "prescriptivist" ("prescriptivist" means "prescribing how language ought to be, not how it is", not "inaccurately describing how language is"; the two often go together — prescriptivist claims are often phrased in a way that disguises them as inaccurate descriptions of language, or are justified using such — but this is one case where they don't), but I guess I can be descriptivist and accept your innovative use of the term as an additional sense. :-P  "My ass" obviously originated as a determiner phrase/determined noun phrase, obviously continues to be one for all speakers outside its idiomatic use, and obviously continues to be one for many or all speakers even in its idiomatic use in some cases (e.g., when an adjective is inserted just where you'd expect one). You say that it's also a pronoun; fair enough, that's a good theory. But in scientific terms, it's not the null hypothesis here, and you need to present solid evidence for it if you want us to reject the null hypothesis. (You are providing some evidence, and I appreciate it, but you also seem unduly miffed by your fellow editors' expectations of solid evidence.) —Ruakh TALK 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm apparently blocked from using diagnostics. Since that's the method used for determining part of speech in linguistics, what sort of evidence outside of the linguistic papers can I possibly come up with? As far as I can tell, those papers offer much more evidence than the view that they aren't pronouns. (Sorry if I seem miffed. I really dislike these sorts of discussions and really regret opening this can of worms. I just want to wrap it up so I can get back to the fun stuff.) Wakablogger 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * Fair enough. It's just that you objected strongly to Ivan's use of the term "real pronouns", even though your references all either (1) consistently refer to "your ass" as a pronominal, not as a pronoun, except in sentences of the form "we argue/conclude/c. that 'your ass' is a pronoun" and so on, or (2) call "your ass" a pronoun, but still contrast it with "normal" or "standard" pronouns. I've argued in the past that our total dependence on part-of-speech for structuring entries is a liability, because it means we can't practice NPOV with respect to part-of-speech classification; this is one example of that. A few papers argue that "your ass" is a pronoun, and they make a decent argument; but it's not obvious to me that this view is now mainstream among linguists, so it seems wrong to use ===Pronoun=== without a <ref> tag right in the header, which we can't do. :-/  And anyway it seems mostly pointless to include a ===Pronoun=== section that will mostly just duplicate the ===Noun=== section above it. (Also, pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean when you say "I'm apparently blocked from using diagnostics"?) —Ruakh TALK 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I'd like to say there was a misunderstanding about the word "real" and leave it at that. BTW, I should mention that I am very grateful for all the people including those in this conversation who put in the work in these discussions to build the infrastructure. For me, contributing to Wikis is a form of entertainment as a break from my very dry job and I don't enjoy anything more than casual interchange or tips. As for the tag issue, are you saying that it's not possible to create a subcategory under pronoun called "quasi" (or whatever)? Can a new category be created that is separate from both? (By "blocked from diagnostics," I was referring to the fact that using diagnostics would violate the Wiki rule against independent research. I need to write a Wikipedia article on them, but diagnostics is the tool used in linguistics to determine if a word is a noun, pronoun, verb, etc. For reference, a simple diagnostic is the "the" test, where if you can put "the" in front of a word, that word is a noun. Obviously you have to be careful not to say things like "the delicious seafood," so diagnostics have to be used with care or else defined carefully, which is itself a theoretical process.)
 * Although I think this conversation is about run its course, I don't quite understand the concern about duplication that you mention. What sort of information specifically would be duplicated in the noun section and the pronoun section? (And is the quantity so large that it would bog down/confuse the articles?)
 * If a linguist concludes that "'your ass' is a pronoun," that is a normal part of the scientific process, no different from a physicist concluding from an experiment that gravity bends light. If linguists are writing papers concluding that "your ass" is a pronoun, my reaction is that they be classified as pronouns, possibly adding a qualifier stating that this appears to be a new finding in linguistics. If a paper is found that disputes that, that information should be added as well. If linguistics academia comes out in force against "your ass" being a pronoun, the pronoun status can be dramatically modified or eliminated for them at that time. I don't think any more evidence is forthcoming about the +/- pronoun status of the ass series; in conclusion, I think either a new tag or a new subtag should be created, or the ass series should go under pronouns. I prefer the latter. Wakablogger 05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

I saw a linguistics paper on this topic once, making a good claim that "yo ass", "my ass", etc are indeed pronouns... I'll try to dig it up. 71.231.54.208 10:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Different etymology?
I was just browsing w:Akanbe#Mon oeil, which details a French version of the eyelid pull gesture that conveys disbelief or disdain; as well as an implicit possible English calque, the archaic phrase "my eye." This phrase was used exactly as the headword of this entry is today. Perhaps this, and not kiss my ass, is the origin? Blue Caper  (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:my ass


text:
compartimentale

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) departmental
 * 2)  district

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: compartimentale


text:
Talk:for what it's worth

Tea room discussion
I tried to write a definition for for what it's worth:, but couldn't come up with anything useful. Is anyone up to the challenge? Rod (A. Smith) 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Interjection. ? DCDuring TALK 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * That seems right. Is there a glossy definition that might do the job just as well?  Rod (A. Smith) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I can't think of a brief suitable one. I can think of synonyms, but they are more idiomatic, eg, "my two cents". Non-glosses are common with interjections, if that's what this should be called. How about "although I am not sure how valuable it is to you"? DCDuring TALK 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I would call this an adverb, since it functions to introduce a phrase or clause in much the same way as however, on the other hand, and other similar expressions (although not with the same meaning). --EncycloPetey 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks, you two. It seems that historically, the phrase was used to qualify a statement that was mentioned separately from making the statement, but now the phrase is typically used with a statement without a separate mention (or rather, only with an implied mention).  Hopefully the glossy definition I added (“considering what limited worth that this advice, opinion, or suggestion might have for you”) works for both the historical and the modern uses and the new etymology explains that shift.  If it seems a bit wordy, feel free to polish it.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Excellent. The first cite seems to be the original, mostly SoP, adverbial use. The others show how it has become more formulaic and parenthetical or interjectory. The usage realities seem to be morphing. My two cents. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * "For what it's worth" (internet abbreviation: FWIW) is somewhat like "FYI" ("for your information") but emphasizes that the recipient not only is not expected to act on the information conveyed but is free to totally disregard it they find it of no particular value for any practical purpose all things considered.  In other words, the sender thinks the information may have value for the receipient (and hence shares it) but in terms of relationships has no ego-attachment to the recipient doing anything with the information.  Kierkegaard409  14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I love this definition! :)

title: Talk:for what it's worth


text: compreendêreis

title: compreendêreis


text:
Talk:octaroon

Tea room discussion
Where does the -roon bit of octaroon come from? Is it like coon? --Borganised 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your second question: No. See octoroon and quadroon. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:octaroon


text:
compassato

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) composed, collected (person)

title: compassato


text:
Talk:accentus

Tea room discussion
Nbarth and I have found two different, but not necessarily incompatible, etymologies for this Latin word. L&S identify the word as coming from the verb accino:, apparently as a participle. Etymology on-line suggests that the word originated as a calque from Ancient Greek. While it is possible that both etymologies are correct in some way, neither source makes any mention of the ideas in the other. Anyone have additional information that will help sort this etymology out? --EncycloPetey 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Nbarth for the discussion we've had between us. --EncycloPetey 00:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * BTW, the link to the claimed calque in question is:
 * Online Etymology Dictionary: accent
 * “from L. accentus "song added to speech," from ad- "to" + cantus "a singing," pp. of canere "to sing". Loan-translation of Gk. prosoidia, from pros- "to" + oide "song,"”
 * Also found in:
 * The concise Oxford dictionary of current English.--8th ed.
 * “L accentus (as AC-, cantus song) repr. Gk prosoidia (PROSODY)”
 * Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * strikes me as being an unlikely source. I once wrote a paper on ; I'll try to dig it up and see if my instructor made any pertinent comments. I can also take a look at TLL next time I visit the library. My Italian etymology source suggests canō as the root of . Medellia 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Is this word only used in Classical Latin in commentaries? If it is really only used by the "language professionals" of the time, it seems all the more likely that it be a calque. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its use is not thus restricted either in time or in scope, and it has additional meanings beyond the grammatical/linguistic sense. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:accentus


text:
Talk:presumptive

Tea room discussion
Is there a sense of presumptive meaning 'will assume' as "presumptive president" is elected but not yet inaugurated? I don't see that sense in our definitions. RJFJR 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I think presumptive is also a synonym for presumed, implicit in the definition “based on presumption.” —Michael Z. 2008-06-26 21:49 z

 * RJFJR: (found me) I am not sure that I understand "will assume" as an adjective.
 * I get the idea that presumptive included a range of very high probabilities. It excludes things that are true by predicate logic (p=1). On the other end it seems to exclude being merely the favorite (p=.6). I think of it as possibly excluding the proverbial "acts of god", under which "all bets are off". DCDuring TALK 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm trying to describe a usage where presumptive president means the same as president elect. (I meant 'will assume' in the verb sense 'assume the office', 'will become' might be better wording.) RJFJR 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure it actually would be used that way. To me "presumptive" implies more uncertainty than merely whether the president-elect (and the entity he would preside over) will survive until a date certain. Have you found usage of the term presumptive president (or governor, mayor, senator, congressman, representative, councilman, minister, MP)? DCDuring TALK 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:presumptive


text: compreendereis

title: compreendereis


text:
Talk:mind you

Tea room discussion
This says it's an adverb. Is that really the best way to look at this expression in its parenthetical usage? Also, its usage note refers to a "non-idiomatic" usage that seems to much a relic to really be so and seems to need a definition. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an adverb in current speech, yes, just as however, for what it's worth, incidentally, etc., but it is typically restricted to the beginning of a sentence. The second (non-idiomatic) sense on the page looks like sum of parts to me.  I agree that the second sense does not belong there, altough I might be worth having in a Usage notes section because there seems to have been a historical shift in use, just as we found in researching for what it's worth. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the American Corpus, it certainly is not "restricted to the beginning of a sentence". Quite the constrary, it seems to have pretty much the same distribution as "however", except it is a bit more informal. Circeus 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the 2 usage examples for incidentally, the first is indisputably an adverb. In the second usage, it seems to be merely a conversational directive, which, I thought, would make it an interjection in that usage. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2016
Sense "Mind that you; be careful that you." Not a phrase or unit of meaning but a fragment. Originally raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/December#mind_you

 * Delete. Note that the creator put a hidden "HTML comment" in the entry: "not sure whether this is a collocation or just a plain old SoP, but per TR, it's better here than in usage notes for a missing sense". Equinox ◑ 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace with or even just  . A similar usex is provided in the verb section of .— Pingkudimmi 07:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Could you explain your reasoning a bit more? mind is a unit in itself, but mind you is a bit like stop the or was near: it's not a self-contained grammatical unit and the same reasoning may not apply. For example, at "go in", we would not include an &lit sense like "it's your go in this Scrabble game". Equinox ◑ 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete. I was succumbing to a foolish line of thinking.— Pingkudimmi 13:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes delete that sense. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Delete this SOP sense per nom. bd2412 T 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:mind you


text: Category:Tea room archives/2008/05

title: Category:Tea room archives/2008/05


text: Category:Tea room archives/2008/06

title: Category:Tea room archives/2008/06


text:
Talk:kelvin

Tea room discussion
As a mechanical engineer with a B.S. and M.S. from MIT with a specialization in Thermodynamics, I must emphatically assert that the usage of the Kelvin scale when spoken or written is always singular (e.g. "77 kelvin"). This is confirmed by Wiktionary "...[kelvin] (usually as postpositioned adjective) A unit for a specific temperature on the Kelvin scale.

Ice melts above 273.15 kelvin. Water boils above 373.15 kelvin."

The temperature unit. I might come close to understanding this, finally, in part. But, I still don't understand the relationship of the official definition (which we appropriately parrot as sense 1) and the 2 senses I added based on the WP article's distinction between the interval kelvin and the specific temperature level. There are at least two distinct common usages: "372.12 kelvin is the boiling point of water." (specific temperature) and "100 kelvins" is the interval over which water is liquid at 1 atmosphere." {interval). The second allows for a plural. The first does not. But I'm not sure that the first should be considered a noun. degree Kelvin is obsolete usage, BTW. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is degree Kelvin obsolete? By "obsolete", we usually mean that not only is it no longer in use, but also that modern speakers would not understand the expression.  Do you really believe that people today do not understand the meaning of degree Kelvin? --EncycloPetey 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how we handle the pronouncements of scientific authorities. We seem to give their sayings great weight selectively, but not systematically. Perhaps we need a tag for terms that are part of an official scientific vocabulary. There are certainly taxonomic names that are obsolete, for example, but may still be used in gardening books. In what sense is that obsolete? DCDuring TALK 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They would be obsolete in the sense that even taxonomists would probably have to look them up in order to determine the current name. The old name is obsolete because it isn't in current use and is meaningless to most people.  This is not the same as degree Kelvin which, even if it may not be in regular current use (though I disagree with that), it certainly doesn't have to be looked up to be understood. --EncycloPetey 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree with a word of what you have said, but I am wondering what you recommend for accommodating the sense in which is has been obsolete since 1968 per the CGBM. Do we treat a scientific nomenclature body as we would a national language academy? I am unfamiliar with whether we or any wiktionary assign any weight whatsoever to a national academy or whether there would be grounds for treating a scientific body differently. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In English anyway, it is attestation which is most important. If the term is becoming obsolete in practice, then it can be labelled nonstandard, or dated.  The status according to an international standards body should be mentioned separately in a usage note (and this status is distinct from our dictionary “obsolete”). —Michael Z. 2008-06-30 17:47 z

 * I agree that "deprecated" != "obsolete". We have, but it's only used in 50 main-namespace entries. I used it for a bit, personally, but stopped when I discovered that a number of editors (and IIRC even a few commenters at Feedback) were mistaking the meaning and thinking that we at Wiktionary were the ones proscribing. A usage note is probably the way to go. —Ruakh TALK 02:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * There is constant deprecation of terminology in scientific communities. It recurs so often that I would think that it would warrant a status indication of some kind that did not require editors to reinvent the proverbial wheel at each instance.
 * The difference between scientific language and ordinary language seems to be that the identity, legitimacy, and value of the authoritative body are fairly clear. The force of the deprecation is fairly strong, presumably mostly through the editorial review process at academic journals as well as other kinds of peer pressure. IUPAC, CGBM, and other bodies seem to matter.
 * Ought we not have a tag for this specific purpose? Should it say "(deprecated by BIPM)" in this instance ? DCDuring TALK 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the second definition is not quite correct, or at least unclear. 100 kelvin is analogous to 100 Celsius (it may be an abbreviation of the non-standard 100 degrees Kelvin), and should properly be capitalized: 100 Kelvin. —Michael Z. 2008-06-29 20:51 z
 * It may well be unclear. Since 1968 there is no use of the unit kelvin that is properly capitalized, according to my consultation of the website that reports the decision of the CGBM (I think). "degrees Celsius" = "kelvins" in the interval sense. "degrees Celsius" corresponds to "kelvin" in the specific temperature sense. The convenient, nearly definitive source seems to be here, (at the BIPM).

By the way, the second example in Kelvin scale seems wrong. The Kelvin scale is a technical concept, not a piece of lab equipment. Any objection to removing it? —Michael Z. 2008-06-29 21:15 z
 * Remove it you like. I'm betting it is used as example indicates. The world of science is backed up be a world of measurement by specific instruments. I think it would be an example of metonymy, if I remember my nyms correctly. 21:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * A Google search on ("kelvin scales" calibration -celsius) resulted in about 25 hits. I checked a few of them, but they did not offer any proof that Kelvin scale is used to mean an instrument. I did two other searches (including Google images) and could not find anything that looked like a Kelvin scale other than thermometers or paper guides showing gradations. I do agree that it would seem that such usage exists, but I did not find any. Wakablogger 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

 * I had a look at all of those search results (12 unique links). Most refer to “Fahrenheit and Kelvin scales,” and some are mistakes.  Not one refers to an instrument such as a Kelvin scale, although three use the phrase "generally an observing block should be self contained, and be able to be calibrated independently, although it might use system calibrations e.g. Jy/Kelvin scales and bandpass," which I assume refers in plural to the Jansky and Kelvin scales.

 * I'm surprised at how few uses there were, but even if used as in the example, it is referring to something else: either an instrument or an indicator, rather than the sequence of temperature intervals. I'll remove the example, and I'll also try to improve the definition, so that it doesn't use the word scale. —Michael Z. 2008-06-29 22:30 z

 * Thanks for the help. IANA physicist or chemist. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to dictionary use
Just came by as a physicist, stumpling upon the use of 273.16 K as the melting point of water which is a common mistake, so took the time to remove it here, to keep it from propagating further on the net.

As I am not a regular editor, I won't see any comments to this, hence the potential need for this explanation.

The melting temperatures of water is 273.15 K, and that has not changed. It was earlier used to define the Kelvin scale.

The value 273.16 K (or 0.01ºC) is waters triple point, which is now used to define the Kelvin scale (hence the mixup, I guess), but that does not make it the melting point of water.

I also changed the boiling point to 373.15, just to keep it simple.

- Richard Tøpholm 188.180.111.132 13:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:kelvin


text:
Talk:bicep

Tea room discussion
We mark this as non-standard. I do not see a justification for doing so. The word (a back-formation from biceps, which was originally singular) has plenty of usage from the best exemplars of "standard" English usage: for just two obvious examples, see results from The (London) Times and the New York Times. By contrast, the plural form bicepses seems only to be used by very bad writers who are trying to conform to some kind of perceived notion of correctness. Widsith 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that it is widely used, certainly in US (MW3) and certainly among the sport set and exercise enthusiasts. The OEtyD, which I usually respect, declares there to be no such word as "bicep", but that seems cranky. IMHO, bicepses would need a usage note, but seems valid. Is it dated? MW3 treats bicep and biceps as acceptable in the singular, but biceps is the main entry. biceps is the first-listed plural. biceps in classical Latin seems to be a not-common adjective meaning "two-headed" or "two-part". The application to anatomy seems to be New Latin. would be the strongest limitation qualifier I'd like for the US. I just don't know about UK. DCDuring TALK 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * But biceps was not originally singular; it was originally plurale tantum from the plural Latin. Yes, it is widely used that way, I agree, but the form bicep is proscribed in many situations.  The word biceps appears in the works of both Cicero and Ovid, as well as in the Vulgate Bible, and is inherently plural in Latin.  --EncycloPetey 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its use in Latin is something else. (In Latin it's an adjective anyway, isn't it?  The only use of it I can find in the Vulgate is Proverbs V:4 "gladius biceps", which seems to mean double-edged sword.)  Its interpretation as a plural form in English seems standard to me.  Why do you think bicep is proscribed, and by whom?  Widsith 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * In modern usage, "bicep" is not at all nonstandard. Old usage and Latin origins are interesting, but the standard name for that muscle nowadays is "bicep".  Google is not the final authority on English usage, but it can be a useful reminder of when discussions are detached from reality:
 * "my right bicep" 374,000 hits
 * "my right biceps" 44,000 hits
 * And that second number is inflated by contractions and possessive-s ("my right bicep's gonna hurt tomorrow!" or "my right bicep's circumference is 30cm"). Gronky (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:bicep


text:
compatimento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) compassion, commiseration
 * 2) indulgence, patience, tolerance
 * 3) condescension

title: compatimento