Talk:attachment

attachment
Rfv-sense X2. Can the first three senses be distinguished meaningfully? Are they inherent in the word itself? (The 2nd and 3rd senses seem included in the first. Is this an RfD-redundant sense problem?)
 * 1) A strong bonding towards or with.
 * 2) A cloying type of dependency.
 * 3) A relationship that is not in the best interests of one or both of the participants.

-- DCDuring TALK 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that 1 is certainly different to 2 and 3, given that it is neutral, where 2 and 3 are negative. I would say 2 is too specific, can mean just "a dependence, especially a strong one" not necessarily just a "cloying" one? I don't think we need 3 at all - is attachment ever used in this sense without an adjective (or context) explicitly saying that the attachment/relationship is not a good one? We could add the word "relationship" somehow to def 1 though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I am bothered by the inclusion of valence in the definition itself. Does the word carry that assessment itself or is it derived from context (or the speaker's or hearer's experience)? In the case of a word like risk, I am quite familiar with the need to make an analogous distinction, but I don't see it in this case. Perhaps citations will help me see the light. DCDuring TALK 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Striking. I've implemented Thryduulf's suggestions (remove sense 3, change sense 2 to "a dependence, especially a strong one"). —Ruakh TALK 21:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)