Talk:at second hand

RFD discussion: August 2019–February 2020
NISoP: = at + second hand. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure if this is BrE, it relates to hearsay, heard at second hand. Not a second hand on a clock, nor second-hand (used, previously owned, and the usual spelling in BrE in that sense). See also secondhand (AmE?). DonnanZ (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, two lemmings from Collins and Oxford Dictionaries.  ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I made those two lemmings more visible within the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the question here is whether the use of "at" is sufficiently idiomatic. I can't think of many other phrases that use it in quite the same way. But if we include this one then presumably we should also include at first hand, and at third hand and maybe higher orders, up to some reasonable limit. Mihia (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps at first hand, but not per se any others, it seems that after at second hand the phrases are attested more sparsely. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there presently any rule that excludes sparsely attested phrases that nevertheless meet minimum attestation requirements (as well as any other relevant inclusion criteria)? I guess ideally we would handle this with a template "at ~ hand", but I don't know how to do that within Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrases do seem a bit SOP, so you can argue they shouldn't be included anyway, unless they are a set phrase or are supported by the lemming criterion; the same dictionaries have at first hand as well but thankfully not any others it seems. The rest could go in Appendix:English snowclones as at X hand. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine at third hand being used, so usage probably stops at and, unlike , , . DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact there are ample citations for "at third hand", and for higher orders too. Not that I am arguing strongly for individual entries. A generic way for people to ascertain the meaning for any ordinal number would be better. Mihia (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)