Talk:attributive

attributive noun
Garner's fourth edition reads The three-syllable form is used for the adjective, my beloved wife, or the attributive noun dearly beloved. As a modifier of an attributive past participle, dearly is familiar in the set phrase dearly beloved. What attributive noun is it referring to? --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's weird. I have no idea. beloved is definitely acting as a noun in dearly beloved, but not an attributive noun as I understand it (and as it's described at attributive noun). Maybe just an error? Actually the glossary of Garner's even has an entry for attributive noun which defines it in the conventional way, ("a noun placed immediately before another noun and used to denote a characteristic of it"), so it's not like they're working from a different definition. Colin M (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023
Rfv-sense: Serving to express an attribute of an object.

This has to be something different from the 2nd sense, "Having the nature of an attribute." There are zero attesting quotations and zero example sentences. I don't find the sense in dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I found at least one old citation which speaks of "all verbs attributive of what passes in the mind", where it seems to mean something broadly along the lines of "attributing" — the cite is about verbs like I hate or I grieve which attribute hatred or grief to me — which might be the kind of thing this definition was trying to cover. In the same vein, "आल and आट put after वाक् Speech, with it form adjectives attributive of much bad or improper speaking", where the adjectives are likewise attributing an attribute, and (like the verbs to hate, etc) can probably also attribute it to e.g. a pronoun (e.g. "he who utters much bad language") and not just a noun as in definition 1. But this definition's wording would need to be improved if we consider it to have been trying to cover this kind of thing. (Not all the cites I put on the citations page are this sense.) - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, modern OED hasn't moved beyond NED's 19th-century glosses: "1. Characterized by attributing. Obsolete. 2. Logic. That assigns an attribute to a subject.  [3 is the grammar sense] 4. So-assigned, so-ascribed (by those who essay to assign the authorship of a painting or work of art)." but with only one or two cites for each. This, that and the other (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very useful. Sense 3 in OED reads "Gram. That expresses attribute". And that reads very much like the nominated RFV-sense. The nominated sense was added in on 10 September 2020 by an anon, with no example sentence. It could be that the anon did not realize the sense in grammar is already covered. Note I also sent Wiktionary sense 2 to RFV, which is nominated below. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have two different definitions of in the glossary, depending on whether we're referring to syntax or semantics. Those are definitions that treat "attributive" as a noun, but the difference equally applies to when it's used as an adjective as well. Theknightwho (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This brings up another issue: I notice that whereas our grammatical sense is restricted to "modifying a noun", the OED's is not limited to nouns. Should our definition be broadened, maybe to say something along the lines of "modifying something, typically a noun" (or some better or even more generalized wording)? If (as our usex says) "big" in "big house" is attributive, would "angry" in "There he goes again with his angry 'no, don't!' and 'that's not safe!'&thinsp;" also be attributive despite modifying a (nounless) phrase rather than a noun? And people speak of that modify verbs... - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be ✅ by. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I cited a new and more general sense, "Attributing; characterized by attributing; effecting attribution"; I think the two challenged/tagged senses have not been cited distinctly from this, so those would fail. They also seem indistinct from each other, like the old problem of people writing a definition three ways, as different definitions ("Having the nature of an attribute", "Serving to express an attribute of an object"). - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case feel free to rework the definitions and close the RFV. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

attributive
Rfv-sense: Having the nature of an attribute.

Not in Macmillan and cambridge.org. It is MW 1, but they have no example sentence for the sense, only for the grammar sense. It is AHD 2; no example sentence. No example sentence and no quotation of use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be ✅ as well. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? (Cf. the section above.) - -sche (discuss) 23:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Failed, already resolved. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023

 * See Talk:attributive.