Talk:blanket

RFD discussion: April–November 2018
Delete the adjective section, and add a new sense to the noun section. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A possible keep, shown as an adjective here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't pass the tests for adjectivity. You can't say "**this ban is blanket" or "**a very blanket statement", for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No it always seems to be attributive, found a couple more refs where it is listed as an adjective, Cambridge and Collins. It appears to be figurative usage of the noun; even the noun can be used figuratively, e.g. . I'm not sure about blanket bath, which needs an entry (an all-over wash given to a person confined to bed); whether it's a literal or figurative sense I don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the adjective section using the lemming heuristic: M-W, Macmillan, oxforddictionaries.com, dictionary.cambridge.org; Collins says "adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]", which I don't know that that means. On a marginal note: these dictionaries used to have such beautiful websites, before this pernicious tabletty design fashion came. Wiktionary still keeps its beautiful design free from locked in top search bars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So we're just going to propagate the mistake of other dictionaries? In fact, I'm not even convinced this a genuine mistake on their part; rather, it looks like an intentional shortcut, to avoid having to explain why it can't be an adjective (their websites aren't really suited to that). As we're more linguistically minded, do we really want to do that too?
 * Collins is probably saying, like the others, that this "adjective" is always found before the noun it qualifies. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see for what I think would be the best solution. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not my favorite; keep as is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's a mistake? There is no ultimate test of adjectivity in English: obviously, not all adjectives are comparable, forming comparatives and superlatives. Note that the etymology of the word seems to be adjectival. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There might be no ultimate test of adjectivity, but that this word passes none of the usual ones (as I said above, I don't think you can say "**this ban is blanket", nor "**a very blanket statement"; and you certainly can't say "**blanketer/**blanketest/**more blanket/ **blanketly" (edit: actually you can, which seriously undermines my point...)) seems like a pretty good indicator that it's not an adjective. If I'm wrong, please show me why.
 * As for the etymology: that the word is of adjectival origin is irrelevant. Or are you arguing that that sense of blanket is actually a remnant of that? I very much doubt it, but again, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I delegate the lexicographical research to lemmings in this case. I do not have access to their internal records and deliberations. I point out again to there being no conclusive test of adjectivity since non-comparable adjectives exist. In Czech, the situation is very different: there, adjectivity is seen from the surface morphology. Thus, lumbální looks like an adjective and inflects like an adjective, and is non-comparable. In English, adjectivity is more difficult to recognize. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Equinox ◑ 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Syntactic reasons? Lemmings? I'm not willing to let this go yet. Per utramque cavernam 11:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How would you phrase your proposed noun sense to replace it? It's virtually always, or maybe always-always, in the form "blanket + noun", and doesn't stand alone as a noun. Just doesn't feel nouny at all. Equinox ◑ 11:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I had a go at adding missing derived terms, and found it difficult in some cases to separate between noun and adjective, so in the end I lumped them all together. Perhaps another editor can do a better job. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The OED has this (under the noun) - "Used adjectivally in the sense: covering or including all, or a number of, cases, contingencies, requirements, things, etc.; all-embracing; indiscriminate, inclusive. orig. U.S." SemperBlotto (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * : Sorry for the canvassing, but I'd like more opinions on this. A similar case to commuter below, so maybe you'll be interested in this one too. Per utramque cavernam 20:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing that overrides all the grammatical tests for adjectivity is the semantic one. Equinox and the lemmings seem to agree on the absence of a suitable nounal definition that fits the attributive use in the challenged sense. MWOnline's closest noun definition is "something that resembles a blanket". But does a denial resemble a blanket in blanket denial in a way that makes the adjective meaning of blanket clear? I think not. Keep. DCDuring (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (and at the same time): fair enough; I take your point that it's difficult/impossible to find a good nounal definition.
 * But what bothers me with simply labelling it as an adjective is that we're hiding a problem under the rug: we don't explain how the sense came to be exactly. It must have been a figurative attributive use of the noun blanket, right? Semantic drive has made it awkward to define it as a noun, but etymologically what else could it be? Per utramque cavernam 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can always put that in the Etymology section. (Sometimes people even split up the ety based on a noun becoming a verb, etc., so that is an option too.) Equinox ◑ 22:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain. To me, this seems a borderline or difficult case. It doesn't totally feel like an adjective to me, but on the other hand, as mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be a suitable noun sense, at least not one that can exist non-attributively. I guess an alternative to "keep" might be to have a noun sense labelled "attributive". Mihia (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would have been my preferred solution, and it apparently is the OED's solution. Per utramque cavernam 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have nothing against that except the prospect of trying to retroactively find and amend the entries that are not consistent with that approach. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2020
Adj. sense:


 * 1) General; covering or encompassing everything.

Another awkward case where we need to decide if this is a true adjective or should be moved to an attributive noun sense. Mihia (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ho-hum ... previously discussed at Talk:blanket ... and I even participated. Well, we may want to close this early if there's nothing substantially new to say. Mihia (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As says, there is nothing to add here to the previous discussion. I am for closing this. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)