Talk:limestone
Latest comment: 1 year ago by P. Sovjunk in topic RFD discussion: June–September 2023
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
I wouldn't class limestone#Adjective as an adjective myself, but as a noun which can be used attributively. In the quote added to the noun, a "limestone kiln" processes limestone, and "limestone chippings" are pieces of limestone. But I have an open mind, and will leave it for discussion, but add that the quote and translations can be transferred to the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, does not pass any adjectivity test. --Lambiam 17:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC) - Note, just thinking out loud, I'm not too familiar with the CFI. Is there value in keeping the adjective sense, just so it can be linked to languages where the word for limestone can be classed as an adjective more clearly? I'm thinking of Dutch, where in "een kalkstenen huis", I'd say it's a (conjugated) adjective. --Azertus (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Azertus: This is why I said above "the quote and translations can be transferred to the noun". This can be done by adding "# (attributive) Pertaining to limestone" or similar. DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good! -1 for reading comprehension. Delete if my vote has any weight here. --Azertus (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Azertus: To ensure they are not lost, I have transferred them. DonnanZ (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good! -1 for reading comprehension. Delete if my vote has any weight here. --Azertus (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Azertus: This is why I said above "the quote and translations can be transferred to the noun". This can be done by adding "# (attributive) Pertaining to limestone" or similar. DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Imetsia (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Rfd-sense "(attributive) Pertaining to or made of limestone." Not a different sense. PUC – 17:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, surely. This, that and the other (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is actually an adjective sense (even though we have it under "Noun"), right? We have a similar adjective sense for marble. If we put it under the proper heading I don't see any problem with the sense. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting point. That is surely just an attributive use of the noun marble; searching Google Books for "very marble" mostly finds phrases like "this very marble". I'd RFD that sense too (not that phrasing with "very" is the only test of adjectivity, but it's a start).
- By contrast, a search for google:"very limestone" turns up mostly people talking about limestone soils, so perhaps that is the adjective sense we should be adding at limestone. Not the attributive sense in the entry though; it's a plain, simple attributive use that does not need a separate sense. This, that and the other (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as is. It's not an adjective. Some editors seem to have no understanding of the attributive use of nouns. DonnanZ (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- A typical DonnanZ vote. There. I just used you attributively- does that mean we have to have an attributive-noun entry? Attributive use is just part of being a noun, so we could do this for half a million English nouns. Why? There are a few cases where plural-only nouns have singular forms that are only used attributively- there we have no choice. Otherwise, let's not. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am underwhelmed by that. DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Chuck. I think I understand the attributive use of nouns better now. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 02:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- ★ So how would you get round the problem of deleting the sense when there are translations for it? You can't remove those too, surely? They can differ from the main form, and that is the point that everybody is ignoring, User:PUC included. DonnanZ (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- A typical DonnanZ vote. There. I just used you attributively- does that mean we have to have an attributive-noun entry? Attributive use is just part of being a noun, so we could do this for half a million English nouns. Why? There are a few cases where plural-only nouns have singular forms that are only used attributively- there we have no choice. Otherwise, let's not. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - you could apply DonnanZ's logic to pretty much every noun. Theknightwho (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You possibly could, but my logic is to use an "attributive" qualifier only where it is unlikely to be an adjective, in English at least. I think the quote says "limestone affair". DonnanZ (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your sentence contains the nouns logic, qualifier, adjective, and quote. All can be used attributively, and all are “unlikely” (to say the least) to be adjectives, which they have in common with the vast majority of English nouns, which number close to half a million. Therefore “your logic” wants us to duplicate almost all noun senses, like this:
- dog:
- 11. A hot dog: a frankfurter, wiener, or similar sausage; or a sandwich made from this.
- 12. (attributive) Pertaining to or made of hot dogs.
- dog:
- --Lambiam 18:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, I think you misunderstand. I am discussing this case only, not zillions of other nouns. I am concerned about the relevant translations for a start. DonnanZ (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your sentence contains the nouns logic, qualifier, adjective, and quote. All can be used attributively, and all are “unlikely” (to say the least) to be adjectives, which they have in common with the vast majority of English nouns, which number close to half a million. Therefore “your logic” wants us to duplicate almost all noun senses, like this:
- You possibly could, but my logic is to use an "attributive" qualifier only where it is unlikely to be an adjective, in English at least. I think the quote says "limestone affair". DonnanZ (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep as a translation hub, unless someone has a better solution.We're going to be a pretty crappy translation dictionary if we can't host adjectival translations of attributive nouns somewhere. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)- Sure, we should find a way to host these translations somewhere. But not having found one yet (probably out of laziness more than anything else) doesn't mean we should keep incorrect POS sections, or separate senses that aren't actually separate senses. Wrong information is worse than missing information. PUC – 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- What's wrong about it? The sense is listed under the noun section and labelled "attributive," so it's clear that the English definition is for a noun sense that is used adjectivally. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I certainly
support a translation hub, and wonder why I didn't think of it. It seems to be a simple solution, which are usually better than complex and messy solutions hinted at by PUC. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support keeping the translation box for sure, but I'm not convinced the sense needs to be kept under the POS header. The translation box would be headed "translations of attributive uses of the noun, for example, limestone statue" or similar. This, that and the other (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- In light of the other suggestions made, I am changing my vote to Delete, provided we keep the translations (preferably as a separate translation table). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support keeping the translation box for sure, but I'm not convinced the sense needs to be kept under the POS header. The translation box would be headed "translations of attributive uses of the noun, for example, limestone statue" or similar. This, that and the other (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, we should find a way to host these translations somewhere. But not having found one yet (probably out of laziness more than anything else) doesn't mean we should keep incorrect POS sections, or separate senses that aren't actually separate senses. Wrong information is worse than missing information. PUC – 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I came across a similar case with graystone, where the two quotes (I added one) are clearly attributive. I modified the def slightly, but are buildings really called graystones? Apparently with brownstone this happens, but I'm not familiar with the practice. DonnanZ (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Equinox sneaked in and revised graystone again after my edit. DonnanZ (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- A few years ago, DCDuring and another editor and I tried to brainstorm how to handle cases where other languages have adjectives for what English just uses the noun attributively for, and two of the ideas were: merge the translations into the existing translations-table with qualifiers (like is demoed at cork), or leave the separate table (demoed at brass) but have the senses be limited to what exists in English...because this issue comes up with any word for a material, and it doesn't make sense to be restructuring English definitions based on what other languages have separate translations for—some languages have separate translations for elbow depending on whether it's mine or yours, but we shouldn't be splitting elbow into two senses "1. A person's own joint between their upper arm and forearm. 2. Another person's joint between..."!
Delete the RFD'd sense (without prejudice to any true adjective that can be attested, very limestone, limestoner than some other soil), and either merge the translations into the existing translations-table with qualifiers, or leave the separate table. - -sche (discuss) 03:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- RFD failed. I removed a sense, and left the adjective translations dangling awkwardly P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)