Talk:Admiraless

RFM discussion: November 2014–September 2015
Move to admiraless. A common noun. Most of the citations are capitalized as an honorific, proper noun, or part of a title. See how many of these [a]dmiralesses are accompanied by capitalized [a]dmirals. —Michael Z. 2014-11-24 02:26 z 
 * It would not be easy to attest admiraless as a common noun. The only use I found searching Books for "an admiraless" or "admiralesses" was:
 * Perhaps singular determiners would lead to more. DCDuring TALK 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps singular determiners would lead to more. DCDuring TALK 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just move? It's not a proper noun. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence? DCDuring TALK 05:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * User: DCDuring There are no citations of [a|A]dmiraless as a proper noun.


 * Citations for admiraless 1719 and 1959 have lowercase initial. Citation 1894 is set in title case as part of an article title. Citations 1887, 1899, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1911, and 1983 are common-noun uses with capitalized initial as a matter writing style, where a noun corresponding to an honorific is capitalized, in an archaic or quaint way that modern style guides eschew. (In citations 1898, 1992, and 1993, and possibly 1983, the common noun is styled with initial cap as part of an honorific title, however this is also usage, and we do not define such a title as inherently capitalized nor as a proper noun, e.g. Admiral, General, Lance Corporal, Professor, Minister, Constable, Director, &c.) —Michael Z. 2014-11-24 15:32 z 
 * I accept the 1907 cite above and the 1959 cite, preceded as they are by the indefinite article. The 1719 cite seems good on semantic grounds.
 * But I dispute that there are not cites of Admiraless as a proper noun. A proper noun is not the same as a proper name. In several of the cases, Admiraless stands alone as a proper name of an individual. In most of the others it is a component of a proper name. In this behavior it is similar to English given names, which we present as proper nouns. I can't defend not classifying as proper nouns all titles that can be used both standalone referencing an individual and as part of a longer proper name.
 * As a matter of policy, I don't think that we should reason by declaring without evidence that the word to be in a word class (ie, "like" other words) and then argue from the behavior of the words in the class. For all seven of the terms in the list with which you close your comments, it is quite easy to attest to their use with the indefinite article and in the plural, probably in both upper and lower case. We did not have sufficient evidence on Admiraless when this RfV began. Admiraless could have belonged in a class of proper nouns that are not attestably ever used as common nouns and are only used to construct honorific proper names and, standing alone, as abbreviated references to the person so honored. DCDuring TALK  17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, now we also have 1927, a third clear citation supporting a move to l.c. common-noun entry.


 * I suggest we agree to move the entry, and we can discuss the merits of adding proper-noun senses for this and similar terms (President does exist).


 * I can’t agree that “Admiraless stands alone as a proper name of an individual.” It is no more a proper noun, or like a given name, than any other common noun used with the definite article: “the admiral,” “the poodle,” “the delicious Sunday breakfast,” or “the hammer I was using.” (To be fair, I have never heard a convincing argument that proper nouns are a class of word rather than a kind of usage of practically any noun.)


 * And I understand your point about policy, but we should not also jump to unreasonably complicated conclusions from simple absence of direct evidence for simple ones. After all, the word is formed with -ess, and no citation attests that admiraless is anything but the female counterpart of admiral. Several citations support this view with parallel constructions like the “Admiral and Admiraless,” or explanations like “honorary position of an admiral.” —Michael Z. 2014-11-24 19:07 z 
 * everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. We do not actually have three cites for either the "wife of an admiral sense" or the "female admiral" sense as a common noun. The "wife of an admiral" sense is not the female counterpart of an admiral. The truly simplest resolution would be to drop the common noun sense altogether, except for the citations.
 * I'd like to hear from someone else on this. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * “Female counterpart of [the term] admiral” is a simpler, non-gloss, definition that encompasses both “female admiral” and “wife of an admiral.” —Michael Z. 2014-11-24 19:52 z 
 * Under which MWOnline definition of counterpart?
 * 1 one of two corresponding copies of a legal instrument:  duplicate
 * 2  a:  a thing that fits another perfectly
 * b: something that completes:  complement
 * 3  a:  one remarkably similar to another
 * b: one having the same function or characteristics as another
 * college presidents and their counterparts in business
 * Feel free to find definitions from any (non-wiki) source, of course. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then the husband of the person referred to in the "female admiral" sense would be an admiral. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Counterpart in the same old-fashioned way that Mrs. John Smith is the female counterpart of her husband. I am not suggesting that that is the best definition for Wiktionary, but it is a simple explanation of the term. Incidentally, OED (2011) defines this term with a single sense that includes the meanings wife of an admiral and female admiral. Perhaps this understanding of it also assumes that the office, position, title, or rank of admiralcy is not exactly just a person. —Michael Z. 2014-11-27 21:22 z 


 * Moved. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)