Talk:amuser

RFV discussion
RFV-sense "Rogues who carried snuff or dust in their pockets, which they threw into the eyes of any person they intended to rob; and running away, their accomplices (pretending to assist and pity the half-blinded person) took that opportunity of plundering him." - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This sense seems to be directly taken from Barrère and Leland's Dictionary of Slang, Jargon and Cant (1889, p.37 s.v. Amusers):
 * Amusers (English and American), thieves, who formerly used to throw snuff or pepper in a victim's eyes, while an accomplice robbed him, under pretext of rendering assistance.
 * Farmer & Henley's Dictionary of Slang and Colloquial English (1927, p.10 s.v. Amuse) has:
 * ... Whence amuser, a cheat a snuff-throwing thief; one that decieves. (Ash and Grose)
 * And Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2013, ed Beale) has:
 * amuse, in late C.17–18 c, is to throw dust, pepper, snuff, etc., in the eyes of the person to be robbed; an amuser is one who does this. B.E.
 * –Catsidhe (verba, facta) 08:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a special usage of a general older sense. We've had this discussion before at amuse (see here).  I've taken the liberty of replacing a specific usage in one work with the more general older sense of which that was a special case.  Technically, this is almost covered by sense 1 since the most of the meaning is given at the amuse entry.  I suppose we could add dozens of particular slang senses, but I think they are all covered by the older meaning.    D b f  i  r  s   11:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...later ... Sorry, in my rush, I'd removed the template before allowing further discussion here. I've restored it as sense 3, but I suggest that this sense be deleted, or used as an example of sense 2.  Francis Grose was a satirist, and seems to have introduced this specific meaning partly as a joke, though there's no doubt that the word was used to describe such thieves, and others who used similar techniques.    D b f  i  r  s   12:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it should stay, even if marked as obsolete or archaic. While the derivation from the primary sense of amuse to the specific one of someone who uses distraction as a cover for theft is obvious enough when shown, it's not necessarily clear without specific mention. It's clearly derived, but it's just as clearly specific and distinct. I would like this sense back in the entry for amuse as well, for the same reason. Even if as a subsense of one of the existing senses. —Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We could certainly extend the sense, or add the Francis Grose as a citation to illustrate usage. As I mentioned, I don't think Grose intended it as a serious definition, but others might have taken it to be so after 1785.    D b f  i  r  s   12:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing up the definition, Dbfirs. As for the "sandy" sense: as per usual RFV practice, it can stay iff there are words that use "amuser" with that sense, distinct from the general sense that's just been added. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1993, Stella Cameron; [Only by Your Touch] p.88
 * "He should have knowed better than to tangle with you, Miss Lindsay. Where did you learn to be an amuser, then?"
 * 2013, Michelle Lovric; [The Remedy]
 * "Valentine watches the bunch of amusers close around the politician, the leader already dipping into his pocket for the snuff to fling into the eyes of their victim."

I did a search for anything likely in Google Books between 1750 and 1900, and found not a damn thing... as I suspect Dbfirs predicted. But the previous two cites show that even if no-one at the time used the term in anger (or at least, not in print), it is now used retroactively for period flavour. I even tripped over a mention of the term being used in the movie Gangs of New York. —Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Francis Grose seems to have had more influence than I had expected. In view of your excellent research, I reverse my opinion and agree that we could have a third archaic slang sense.     D b f  i  r  s   13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems we allow cites from durably archived non-written material, a Gangs of New York citation would be fully acceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quotes for Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Character) from Gangs of New York (2002)
 * Boss Tweed: I don't know. I think maybe we should hang someone. Bill: Who? Boss Tweed: No one important, necessarily. Average men will do. Back alley amusers with no affiliations.
 * Will that do? —Catsidhe (verba, facta) 08:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It fits the general sense 2, and might, or might not, be intended in the Francis Grose sense.   D b f  i  r  s   09:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Passed. Citations added to the entry; since every cite is recent, I changed the label from obsolete to historical. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: July 2011–May 2017
Tagged, not listed. Looks like an RFV might be in order. Equinox ◑ 10:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks awesome now --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)