Talk:การสีซอให้ควายฟัง

RFD discussion: July 2021–April 2023
This idiom does not add การ-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you assist with this and the below request? This, that and the other (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 quotations could be a bit hard - I only get 430 raw Google hits and Quiet Quentin is barely usable on Firefox. (I don't know whether that's a subtle attempt to drive us to Chrome/Chromium.) --RichardW57 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what 's point is. Is he arguing that formulaic abstract nouns like this are simply SoP?  Does he accept  as valid if the 3 quotations can be provided?  A precedent for including the challenged term is . RichardW57 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a quotation for the verbal noun of the idiom. RichardW57 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I might be a little too stereotypical. Most idioms do not add "การ/ความ" because they have been around since ancient times. The addition of "การ/ความ" on verbs/adjectives/adverbs has only been for later ~100 years (but not all words can apply). If you see that idioms with "การ/ความ" already in use, so I can allow it. If possible, may I have 2 examples. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added two more quotes. Cleaning up the first new citation is possibly beyond me - the passage seems badly trimmed by Google books. The 2021 citation can be rescued, but I first want to know that it's accepted as a durable quotation. The paragraph reads to me as a chain of run-on sentences - I'm not sure that I can trim it. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your logic. The idiom doesn't seem restricted to being part of particular larger idioms.  Is there a competing idiom that would suppress use of the abstract noun? --RichardW57 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be RFD-kept. Vininn126 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)