Talk:épater le bourgeois

épater le bourgeois
French section. Is this actually a phrase in French? No one I asked has ever heard of it. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it but Google Books suggests that it exists in French. Unless all of those are literal meanings. A lot of them seem to be 100 years ago, perhaps it exists but is no longer in common usage. PS seems to exist in Spanish. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep. Yes, it's a set phrase (but épater la bourgeoisie is not a set phrase in French...) I believe it's still in common usage, but it may be a bit dated. Lmaltier 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say so, withdrawn. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2018–July 2021
Not an idiom in French. Per utramque cavernam 06:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Three cites:, , . --Lambiam 11:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cites aren't lacking; what I'm arguing is that it's not idiomatic. Per utramque cavernam 17:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So is your argument that this collocation is SoP? --Lambiam 18:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Though I'm not so sure now; I don't think I would have needed a dictionary had I encountered it in context, but it seems to be a genuine (obsolete) expression. Per utramque cavernam 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree: when you use this phrase, you don't take épater + bourgeois, you take it as a part of the French vocabulary. épater is not limited to bourgeois, you use bourgeois only because it's part of the phrase... It's really a set phrase. Lmaltier (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Proof that it is indeed a lexicalised expression in French? Per utramque cavernam 23:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What would that look like? 212.250.152.37 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be probably be recognised as such by some dictionaries, or by some French speakers (other than Lmaltier, whom I don't trust in the least.) PUC – 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Compare . Fay Freak (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an idiom that has been adopted into English. I've encountered it many times. Merriam Webster and Oxford Reference both have it listed. A simple search in Google Books yields thousands of uses as an idiom.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the French entry for deletion, not the English one. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? PUC – 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It probably "feels" more idiomatic because of the borrowing. A Google Books search returns mostly non-French sources. – Jberkel 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * By the entry, I would get . amaze and shake/shock are somewhat different to me. But well, maybe needs an expansion? --幽霊四 (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we think that "confound" is as likely a translation as "amaze" then the distinction between "amaze" and "shock" is less important. This expression, which I have often come across, I wanted to modernize to "épater la PMC", and this entry was useful to me in designing my version.
 * I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, and you haven't signed your comment, so we don't know who you are. Struck. PUC – 10:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)