Talk:deadly

Deadlier... Deadliest...?
How can deadly be comparative? Surely if one is killed by a knife or by an A-bomb one is still just as dead. Although people may argue that factors such as speed come into the equation - sure it will kill faster... but when everything is said and done one isn't "deader", they're just dead.

Or given the example of chance of death... say two snakes, one which has a 100% of killing, the other a 50% chance. The "100% snake" is not "deadlier", rather it has a 100% chance of being deadly, while the other has a 50% chance of being deadly. But that doesn't make the "100% snake" more deadly. Isn't the comparison between the chance of becoming deadly, rather than how deadly the snake is?

Just wondering...


 * Language just isn't that precise. You can say someone is "deader than a doornail" (meaning they are very certainly dead); it doesn't mean they are more dead than somebody else who died. Equinox ◑ 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland English
Newfoundland English uses the term presently in the same sense as definition four. I don't know where I would find any sort of evidence in a written work though, so I am not gonna add that to the Australian Aboriginal Slang note there.

what is the difference between dead and deadly when both as an adv
What is the difference between dead and deadly when both as an adv?


 * 1) It is dead simple
 * 2) It is deadly simple


 * "Deadly simple" is just wrong, not normal English. Equinox ◑ 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2020
Tagged by Schläsinger X yesterday, not listed:
 * “1. Wycliffe Bible and that other are Middle English; 2. Romans doesn't exist, there's Romaynes but with another version/spelling”

Sense:
 * Subject to death; mortal.
 * And whan he cam to the sacrament of the masse / and had done / anone he called Galahad and sayd to hym come forthe the seruaunt of Ihesu cryst and thou shalt see that thou hast moche desyred to see / & thenne he beganne to tremble ryght hard / whan the dedely flesshe beganne to beholde the spyrytuel thynges
 * And whan he cam to the sacrament of the masse / and had done / anone he called Galahad and sayd to hym come forthe the seruaunt of Ihesu cryst and thou shalt see that thou hast moche desyred to see / & thenne he beganne to tremble ryght hard / whan the dedely flesshe beganne to beholde the spyrytuel thynges


 * 1382–1395, John Wycliffe et al. (translators), Romans i. 23:
 * The image of a deadly man.

J3133 (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll keep looking, but from browsing through a whole bunch of EModE texts, this doesn't seem to have survived past Middle English (seeming counterexamples are later printings of texts of ME origin) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've somehow managed to cite this; it seems it only barely survived. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * So / and possible other forms (with -li or deed-?) are treated as one term, and not as two or more terms? --Schläsinger X (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's ever been formally decided whether differing spellings of a term count for attestations, so I wouldn't know. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For a long time, we required citations of the specific form. Lately some editors have moved to pass terms with citations from multiple forms. I long favored requiring citations of each form, because we have entries of a per form basis, and really, if there aren't three citations of a certain spelling, we're dealing with a word that's probably too exceedingly rare that "someone would come across it" in the words of CFI. Most cases where multiple spellings have 2 citations end within a year with a third citation of one spelling becoming findable, e.g. the gyneconome set and the gap-lapper set, and I'm wary of opening the door to "combining" citations of different forms, but there are both benefits and drawbacks / complications to each approach. Meh. - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought on the issue in great depth, but Early Modern English words/senses/forms, as they lacked a fixed spelling, could possibly deserve more lenient treatment here than neologisms. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, language is primarily spoken, and as such, there are certain words that would have been common enough in speech, but not in writing, that are worth including for historical reasons. If it's clear that a word existed, but wasn't written consistently in writing, we can see our citations as indirectly citing the spoken word. That mostly applies to older words, though, since so many potential sources of citation (like letters) have been lost to time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed, although barely, as it does not seem to have lasted very long into Modern English. Kiwima (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2020–January 2021
"Very accurate (of aiming with a bow, firearm, etc.)." There is one citation, describing a flintlock, which is indeed deadly because it is a type of gun. I don't agree that the single given citation means "accurate". Equinox ◑ 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps we could look for instances of "deadly aim" in relation to sports such as archery or shooting, where one is aiming at an inanimate target. Mihia (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think the citations are that great. If we talk about the "deadly accuracy" or "deadly aim" of a weapon that can in fact cause death then it might equally be the "lethal" sense. Deadly accuracy with something harmless, like a frisbee thrown for a friend to catch, would be more convincing. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the quotes involves a nerf gun, hardly a deadly weapon. Most involve more metaphoric aim, such as "deadly aim at precious truth" or "points with deadly accuracy to our capacity for evil". None of these involve anything lethal. Kiwima (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this, because you can use lethal similarly: Are we missing a sense at lethal or...? - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent use
The word is now fequently used (incorrectly, I think) to mean "fatal". A deadly car accident, a deadly house fire, a deadly attack with an axe, etc. This is not the same as Def. 2, "Causing death; lethal." which conveys the sense of impending death, instead of referring to death after the fact. Wastrel Way (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Eric