Talk:consume mass quantities

consume mass quantities
Incorrectly marked as "idiomatic" with nothing more than sum-of-parts quotations (direct object is optional, in the English language, for that first citation.) Nothing specific or idiomatic about drinking even though a comedy reference would naturally gravitate towards that. --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this entry because I judged that it is a legitimate idiom. The CFI discussion of idiomaticity says that "an expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components" and allows that "compounds are generally idiomatic" since the component terms almost inevitably have a range of meanings.  I do not think that the "full sense" of this well-known term (which includes an implied gusto, extravagance, and comic import that comes from knowing the origin) is ascertainable simply by looking up the components.  I also think that the range of meanings of "mass" creates difficulties in understanding it simply from the component meaning.  There is another criterion I sometimes use for idiomaticity (not in WT's CFI, to be sure, but reasonable I think): Would the term tend to trip up {i.e., "not be easily derivable for," to adapt the CFI language) someone whose second language is English, even if that someone speaks English well?  I think this expression would tend to trip up such a person and that it should be in a dictionary where that sort of person can find it.  So I think it's a valid entry.  -- WikiPedant 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coneheads cruft, has not entered the English language. bd2412 T 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have 'deleted it on sight. SemperBlotto 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Widsith 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I've heard this many times, and didn't know it had a specific origin. Also, it's not a typical use of the word mass; ordinarily we'd require the word massive in this kind of phrase. On the other hand, I'm not sure it has the specific meaning that this entry is claiming; maybe that was the original intent, but it seems to have been adopted by some as a sum-of-parts collocation, in that I'm pretty sure it can imply gluttony (not necessarily gusto or extravagance), and in that it's applied to other senses of consume besides just "eat". —RuakhTALK 17:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be a distinction drawn between "consume mass quantities" as a fixed idiom and "consume mass quantities of..." as an open frame? As an open "quantities of X" frame, this is sum-of-parts, meriting at most a usage note under mass (and also under consume mass quantities if kept).  As a fixed idiom, this does seem to meet CFI, though not by much .  Ergo, let's keep and clean up. -- Visviva 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And here I'd always thought that it was just sloppy pronunciation for "consume vast quantities." I'm not convinced it is anything more than that, even now, except that some people who have mis-heard it have now mis-written it, too. Delete before it spreads further. 216.209.113.178 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Prescription does not fall within our mandate here; if this phrase is in use, and verifiably so, our sole task as wiki-lexicographers is to document that use. So I don't really grasp your grounds for deletion.  As for the etymology, I don't find this convincing -- no more so than a shortening of "massive," anyway; if you have some evidence for this, please share.
 * Personally, I prefer my own pet theory that this use of "mass" (which is also found in similar phrases like "mass amounts"), has evolved from the older adjectival sense of "mass" meaning in bulk or en masse -- cf. mass action, Mass Games, etc. It is natural enough for a word to pass from meaning "in bulk" to meaning "big" or "bulky," just as the meaning of "bulk" seems to have evolved in the opposite direction.  -- Visviva 13:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–August 2018
"Passed" RfD in 2008 by a vote of 3 for keeping, 5 for deleting. See recent discussion at Tea_room/2018/July. DCDuring (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: I think it is SoP and the use in a particular TV comedy series is nothing remarkable. Prior RFD drew attention to unusual use of "mass", which I also disagree with: in Google Books I can see "mass quantities" of books, people, collectibles, air, chemicals... Equinox ◑ 20:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wasn't here in 2008, but I'm disappointed to see that Visviva archived the discussion (and therefore presumably closed it, although not explicitly) as a keep while being one of the keepers in the minority. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a small community of admins who do this work, so it is not unusual for an admin to close a discussion in which they have participated. As you can see on this page, sometimes discussions otherwise go unattended for months. The discussions are transparent enough that a closure against consensus would immediately be visible. bd2412 T 19:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given in the Tea Room discussion. I don't think the ellipsis of the object inherently idiomatizes it; compare e.g. "police arrested two drug kingpins; they were smuggling mass quantities". - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there are quotations attesting to its idiomaticity. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, just as in 2008. bd2412 T 19:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)