Talk:accuse

Discussion from Requests_for_cleanup room concerning the verb
IMO the four definitions currently present should be merged into one, because their meanings are not distinct enough, especially as detailed Usage notes follow and there is only one Translations table. The present state seems to me fairly counterproductive from the point of a common user, who would probably be confused rather than enlightened. --Duncan MacCall 12:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The translations table is supposed to follow, not lead, the definitions. The third, legal, context might merit distinct mention though nearly the same as the second sense. The usage notes don't explain as well as would modern usage examples or citations. There may be an intransitive sense and/or dated senses. I don't get any distinction whatsoever between senses 1 and 4. This seems to have been awaiting attention since import from Websters 1913, as with many such imports. Several distinguished contributors have broken their swords on it. The date of its import, December 7, 2003, is a day that, for some reason, I feel may well live in infamy. If we do this right, our reward is to reduce Webster 1913 to a reference, not a warning notice. DCDuring TALK 21:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if there are two senses only: (1) to find fault or point out offense, (2) to charge with a crime or offense. The second has a formal, legal connotation that isn't implied in (1).  Accussing someone of stubbornness is not the same as accusing them of embezzling.  I've also just looked in Webster's 3rd, and there are only two numbered senses there as well. --EncycloPetey 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Synonyms like indict don't match a non-legal sense definition. (Hmmm, just like the translation-target argument.) DCDuring TALK 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, so what if I merge the first and fourth definitions into  To find fault with, to blame, to censure , and the second and third into  To charge with having commited a crime or offence ? --Duncan 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and done it. (Left there the tag yet though.) --Duncan 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough time passed. Tag removed, striking. (After all 'twas me who rfc-ed this). --Duncan 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)