Talk:abash

Hello. I don't like that much table. I would rather see it at the end of the articles in as section like grammatical note. thank you for correcting my articles :-). See you. -- youssef 12:22 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)~

Hi, about the order of things, I'd say the most important/central piece of information should go up to the top of the article, more specific info further down into specialised sections. For my subjective feeling, I'd consider the definition(s) of an entry essential. MarcS 12:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Mark. I did consider these issues as I developed my own ideas, which I expressed at User:Eclecticology/Vision. There is no doubt that the most important thing about a word is what it means, and your idea would work perfectly well if every word had just one single clear meaning. My general approach has been to begin with those ideas that lead to a fork in the road of a word's development. The word bear can be either a verb or a noun. It's two very different meanings have completely different origins. Both are pronounced the same so at least that's not a problem. The noun is well behaved, but the verb is irregular. To varying extents these things often must be considered before we can even get to the definition.

What I've quickly learned is that dictionary writing is more complicated and difficult than it would at first appear. The challenges are, ne3vertheless, interesting. Eclecticology 18:24 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

What I dislike most about the table is the messy looking html-like code in the Edit view. Would it be possible to add tags for a standard "simple" table? Something like:
 * TH: Imperfect : Past Perfect : Present Participle
 * TR: abashed  : abashed      : abashing

InfoSlave 18:23 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC) (woooo! i discovered the four tildes trick :) )

Tea room discussion
I would like to edit indignify as a synonym and definition of abash, do you agree?--Rollyta 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's more like scorn or insult, but look through these 8 hits in books published in last 50 years. Some are reprints or excerpts from older works. One is a thesaurus mention. This might be considered or . DCDuring TALK 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First quotation is not transitive
It seems so to me at least. WDYT?--So9q (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "He was a man whom no check could abash" -> "no check could abash this man" -> transitive verb with "this man" as grammatical object. Transitivity isn't about word ordering, but about which object the verb applies to. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Now I get it. :)--So9q (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Usage notes
I removed the following usages notes, from Webster's dictionary, dating back to at least 1830. Such old-fashioned language that it isn't helpful for today's readers. If you disagree, and think we want to be useful for people in the 19th century, feel free to reinstate it. Queenofnortheast (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of abash, confuse, confound: Abash is a stronger word than confuse, but not so strong as confound.
 * We are abashed when struck either with sudden shame or with a humbling sense of inferiority; as, Peter was abashed by the look of his Master. So a modest youth is abashed in the presence of those who are greatly his superiors.
 * We are confused when, from some unexpected or startling occurrence, we lose clearness of thought and self-possession. Thus, a witness is often confused by a severe cross-examination; a timid person is apt to be confused in entering a room full of strangers.
 * We are confounded when our minds are overwhelmed, as it were, by something wholly unexpected, amazing, dreadful, etc., so that we have nothing to say. Thus, a criminal is usually confounded at the discovery of his guilt.
 * Satan stood Awhile as mute, confounded what to say. – John Milton


 * Yeah, "confused" nearly always means "puzzled" today, not thrown into blushing confusion like a maiden caught changing. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)