Talk:GR

RFV discussion: June–November 2022
Meaning Georgius Rex in English. Easily citable in Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few examples of GR appearing on postboxes here:-, , , , and . We have equally valid entries for ER (the Queens Elizabeth and Kings Edward) and VR (Queen Victoria). E.R and G.R also often appear in cryptic crosswords for ‘king’ or ‘queen’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - but is it English? Seems very much like the use of Latin for the occasion to me, which is congruent with how I've seen the written-out form used. Theknightwho (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching on OneLook, the Free Dictionary gives E.R as meaning King/Queen Edward/Elizabeth according to Collins, the lemming principle doesn’t quite apply I suppose but G.R is similar enough to deserve an entry, in my mind, as when people see G.R on a post box they know what it means even if they don’t know Latin. It’s borderline though, as I don’t think anyone would ever say something like ‘G.R ascended to the throne’ in an actual sentence. It’s also worth noting senses 3 and 7 of R (where it is short for ‘Rex’ or ‘Regina’). Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The only context I can think of where it might crop up are the Journals of the House of Commons, as they're essentially the formal minutes of the House of Commons (as opposed to Hansard, which is a transcript). It'll still be difficult to find if there, and I doubt that it'll be in this non-punctuated form, too. Theknightwho (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Above and beyond the basic RFV question, isn't there an issue about whether GR standing for "Georgius Rex" could even theoretically be English? How would we cite this? If someone finds a citation where GR stands for "Georgius Rex" then we would still presumably say "yeah but that isn't English". Equinox ◑ 07:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It easily passes RFV due to its appearance on post/pillar boxes alone, the real issue is whether it should it be subject to an RFD due to it being Latin but surely it’s just as valid as q.v., etc. and RSVP? Also GR could just be listed as an alternative form of G.R. if G.R. Was to become the main entry (q.v. qv and etc). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If we saw GR being used in an English sentence with the meaning of "King George", then that's definitely English (and the derivation can go in the etymology), but for it to be an initialism of "Georgius Rex" in English, I think you'd also have to show that "Georgius Rex" is English. Not very likely, but theoretically possible. Theknightwho (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Humm, I dunno, e.g. is very much English but exemplī grātiā (which I suspect fewer than 10% of e.g. users could explain to you) is probably not English by anyone's standards. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but we don't define it as "initialism of exemplī grātiā", whereas GR is defined that way. Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim at the entry is not that GR means Georgius Rex ”in English”, but that it is an initialism of Georgius Rex, which is true. The meaning is given in a non-gloss definition as “The for  and his son, kings of Great Britain”. This sense is not hard to verify (image of a GR letterbox); the question may remain whether appearances on letterboxes count as uses.  --Lambiam 08:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a learned borrowing of the Latin initialism Georgius Rex. There are plenty of other borrowings like that in English, but the place to put that is the etymology section. Currently, the template links to the English sections of Georgius and Rex, which in the case of the former does not exist. In any event, the royal cypher is a symbol and not a proper noun, so it's not correct in that sense either. Theknightwho (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the definition and etymology could be improved but once we’ve done so, let’s call this RFD-resolved. It reminds me of the definition I added for in, where I claim that it can mean ‘burning’. The fact that people say ‘keep the fire in’ to mean ‘keep the fire burning’ but they don’t say ‘the building’s in’ to mean ‘the building’s burning’ doesn’t change the fact that ‘in’ can mean ‘burning’ in the right context. Similarly, ‘G.R’ means ‘King George’ only in the context of letterboxes/postboxes/pillar boxes and perhaps the odd coin or stamp but within that context the two terms are interchangeable. It would be wrong to claim that it’s an invalid definition due to it not appearing in books as it does appear in them, albeit only in the context of discussing postboxes that bear these letters. I’m not sure whether we could even class it as Latin, as would a supporter of the divine right of Kings, write or say in Latin “GR (or G.R) est divinus” instead of “Georgius Rex est divinus” if they were trying to say “King George is divine”? (not that the situation would arise outside of the Vatican). Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose the reason I brought it here is that I was genuinely curious whether it was used in English, which is just about plausible for extremely formal texts from the 18th century - even though I can't find any. I think the solution is probably to move the relevant bits to the etymology and to change the part of speech to Symbol, while keeping it in the English section. It being defined as a royal cypher is probably sufficient to cover usage, but a usage note about it appearing on post boxes wouldn't hurt. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I’ve created Citations:GR. By all means relabel it under a different term, Symbol rather than Proper Noun but we shouldn’t get rid of this entry, so let’s call this Cited (and RFV-resolved/passed in a week’s time, depending on whether we relabel or not). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Passed (though feel free to relabel the part of speech by all means). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)