Talk:embalming fluid

RFD
Nope, just a fluid used for embalming. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's a particular fluid or combination of chemicals, not just whatever happens to be used; a regular phrase with a specific meaning, like post office, hood ornament, or mixing bowl. A compound word, to be sure, but because it refers to a specific medium rather than a generic one in a particular sense, it seems like an appropriate entry.  In other words, it's idiomatic because the meaning is more specific than the sum of its parts; not just any fluid that an embalmer might happen to use, but a specific fluid or fluids used for that particular purpose; according to the criteria for inclusion, it meets the "fried egg test".  Not sure if it helps to know this, but a raw Google search just now showed that about 1/3 of all mentions of "embalming" are for the specific phrase "embalming fluid."  P Aculeius (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "...it refers to a specific medium..."—the thing is, it doesn't refer to anything specific in terms of contents, but to "a variety of preservatives, sanitising and disinfectant agents and additives... Typically embalming fluid contains a mixture of formaldehyde, methanol, and other solvents." (bold mine). Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But because there are typical ingredients or mixtures that are used for embalming, rather than other purposes, it's a particular thing, not just any fluid that an embalmer might happen to pour into a corpse. Embalming fluid isn't the same thing as say, lighter fluid; not just because it's poured into the body cavity, rather than a lighter, but because it necessarily consists of different things.  Embalming fluid may not always consist of the exact same mixture, but it's definitely not just any fluid that an embalmer might make use of (no rule against embalmers using lighter fluid to light a cigarette or start a fire, is there?).  Note the fried egg test mentioned under criteria for inclusion.  A fried egg means a specific way of preparing an egg, even though other ways of cooking an egg also involve frying (note that just because a fried egg is a specific thing, it doesn't have to be fried in exactly the same way every time).  The phrase "embalming fluid" is more than the sum of its parts, meaning more than simply the word "embalming" plus the word "fluid."  If it were, then any fluid would become "embalming fluid" if an embalmer poured it into someone, whether or not it's normally used in the embalming process, or has the desired effect of embalming.  It doesn't have to consist of one and only one combination of ingredients; note that lighter fluid doesn't have to be butane, but could be naphtha or conceivably any fluid that might be used for the same purpose in a lighter, but it wouldn't refer to bodily fluids, even if you put them in a lighter.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "If it were, then any fluid would become "embalming fluid" if an embalmer poured it into someone, whether or not it's normally used in the embalming process, or has the desired effect of embalming." (bold mine)—that's actually it: any fluid becomes embalming fluid if it has the desired effect of embalming. Whatever people in Ancient Egypt used for embalming probably differed substantially from what is used now. And even components used nowadays differ depending on who does the embalming and where it takes place. In the future, we might come up with totally different components, and used together they will still be called "embalming fluid". Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that's what I said. And it would still be a distinct thing, separate from lighter fluid or amniotic fluid or spinal fluid.  It's not a random confluence (pardon the pun) of words.  There's a rather limited number of regularly-encountered phrases (or idioms, or compound words, however you want to call it) involving fluid, and this is one of them.  It's not merely fluid that happens to be involved in some way in the process of embalming, such as something that leaks out of the body when somebody is being embalmed, or something you find in embalmed people.  It's something specific that embalmers use in the embalming process.  The fact that it can consist of different ingredients doesn't make the words generic, any more than a fried egg isn't a thing because you can fry it with butter, margerine, or oil, or because you can fry a chicken egg, a turkey egg, or an ostrich egg, or because you can add salt or pepper or other ingredients as you fry it.  It's still different from a scrambled egg, even though a scrambled egg is also cooked by frying.  And embalming fluid is distinct from the concept of "any fluid that one might encounter in the course of, due to, or after embalming."  Such fluids could also be described generically as "embalming fluids" even if they're not used for the purpose of embalming, the same as many berries are blue without being blueberries.  But when you use the phrase "embalming fluid," you create the expectation that you're referring specifically to the fluids used by a mortician to embalm someone, not other fluids to which the word "embalming" could theoretically be applied.  For instance, if somebody fell into a vat of some liquid and were unintentionally embalmed, that would be "an embalming fluid" in the generic sense, as long as the person were embalmed in it.  And any fluid combined with it later would be "an embalming fluid".  But that wouldn't make it "embalming fluid", which is a liquid prepared for the express purpose of embalming, no matter what it's made of.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be a "distinct thing", but dictionaries are for "words", not "things". Encyclopedias are for "things". In this case, the "thing" is identifiable by reading our entries for the "words" and . --WikiTiki89 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it different from "lighter fluid" then? Anything can be used as an embalming fluid, as long as it embalms. Anything can be used as a lighter fluid, as long as it lights a lighter. In fact, there could conceivably be a substance that could function as both an embalming fluid and a lighter fluid. Let's call it Fluid X. How would you define Fluid X? What if it can also be used as a substitute for blood, or, say, to treat cancer? Would you call it "embalming fluid" or "new blood"? Why not "lighter fluid"? Or better yet, "lighter fluid lite". And what if somebody runs a test on it and discovers that it only contains salt and water, and all of its properties are just imaginary? Salt and water—what kind of fluid is that? Can you embalm with that? Or what if it's genuine, but comes from China? And by China I mean PRC. And you don't know what's in it. And you are legally forbidden to run the test because they put a copyright on that product. No tinkering with the source code. Would you use that for embalming? Would you trust the CPC with that? Why on earth would you use anything for embalming? Who are you going to embalm, and why? It would make as much sense as writing countless paragraphs full of musings about embalming on the Internet!
 * My point being—there must be a less voluminous and convoluted way of making a point than the one you tend to employ. If you could find it, maybe people wouldn't get lost in your arguments and waste their time contradicting you with points that in fact don't contradict what you say at all.
 * As for the reasons the entry should be deleted—what Wikitiki89 said. Much more succinct, and you don't have to drag bodily fluids into the discussion. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It sucks but this doesn't meet CFI so it should be deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. If I get a water pistol and fill it with "embalming fluid" and spray it on random bystanders, will they suddenly become enbalmed? No? Then there is idiomatic limitation to its usage. bd2412 T 18:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm... That's a feature of embalming, not of the fluid. You can't just take a living person and suddenly embalm them. In case what you meant to ask is whether the fluid you sprayed is still embalming fluid since you are not using it for embalming: Well, is a salad bowl still a salad bowl if you put soup in it? Yes, a salad bowl is still a salad bowl even when you put soup in it and embalming fluid shot out of a water gun is still embalming fluid (and the water gun is still a water gun), but that doesn't mean that is not evidence that these noun phrases are lexicalized. --WikiTiki89 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BD2412, relevance? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevance is what most of the people replying keep missing. The phrase is idiomatic because it refers to a particular thing that is more than the sum of its parts.  The criteria for inclusion clearly explains this concept, and I've been trying to get that idea across, apparently without much success.  "Green fluid" isn't idiomatic.  "Smelly fluid" isn't idiomatic.  "Cattle rustling fluid" isn't idiomatic.  They're all phrases, they all mean something, or possibly a whole range of things.  But "embalming fluid" is a very specific thing, and it doesn't encompass every fluid to which the word "embalming" could possibly apply, and as BD2412 tried to explain, it's embalming fluid whether or not you happen to be embalming anything with it.  Simply because something is a noun and might warrant an encyclopedic discussion doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in a dictionary.  Most dictionaries do include words like this, even if they don't always include every word that could possibly be included.  Webster's Third, for example, doesn't include "salad bowl," but does include "salad plate" and "salad fork."  No harm is done by including a one-sentence definition of a word merely because you could get several paragraphs about it in an encyclopedia.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "...I've been trying to get that idea across, apparently without much success."—could it be that there's something wrong with the message then?.. The phrase is not idiomatic, because—here's the definition of 'idiom' from the Oxford Dictionary of English: a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g. over the moon, see the light) (bold mine). "Embalming fluid" is not an idiom, because its meaning is totally deductible from the individual words. What's more, it's totally just a sum of parts, as 'embalming' here means 'that which embalms', not 'that which is used during embalming', so it's literally 'embalming' + 'fluid', "fluid that embalms". Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is "fluid that embalms", why can't I embalm a random stranger by pouring a bucket of it on him? "Salad bowl" is an apples and oranges comparison. "Salad" is not a gerund. Compare running shoe. bd2412 T 20:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's not "fluid that can embalm anything even if it cannot normally be embalmed", it is just "fluid that embalms" or "fluid for embalming" (just like "bowl for salad"). If you could embalm a random stranger on the street at will, then it would be with embalming fluid, wouldn't it? --WikiTiki89 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had a fluid that would instantly embalm a stranger on the street, I would think it would need to be called something other than "embalming fluid" to avoid confusing it with fluid engineered for embalming. If I mix pineapple juice and cranberry juice together, it might make a juice that is orange, but it wouldn't be right to call it "orange juice". bd2412 T 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can embalm a random stranger by pouring embalming liquid on them. We don't know. Because, as it has been established, there are no established components for an embalming fluid—they differ all the time, from culture to culture, from epoch to epoch. We simply don't know what it is. What are we defining??
 * Why would you call that fluid something else? Take WD-40—you can use it for almost anything in the world (probably for embalming too). Do people call WD-40 something else every time they use it for something else? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that you can't embalm a random stranger regardless of the fluid you use, because that wouldn't make sense under the definition of embalm. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Are there any uses of "embalming fluid" outside the most common context? e.g. I assume coroners use more than one fluid in their job, are they ever referred to together as "embalming fluids"? Is "embalming fluid" also used in reference to, say, ancient Egyptian embalming? Or just the modern array of fluids? WurdSnatcher (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC) (Edit: Okay, I've been convinced to keep.)
 * "Ancient Egyptian embalming fluid" gets zero readable Google Books hits, and a half dozen regular Google hits (the most comprehensible comes from this "Bee & Honey Facts" blog, which says that "[h]oney has been used an ancient Egyptian embalming fluid, as a cure for burns, as sweetener for tea, and much more"). bd2412 T 23:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When I looked up "embalming" and "embalming fluid" on Wikipedia, I saw numerous references to other methods of embalming, and a few fluids used for embalming other than those used nowadays, but none of them were referred to as "embalming fluid." When Nelson was embalmed in brandy, the brandy was literally an embalming fluid, but it was still just brandy, not "embalming fluid."  In other words, the phrase "embalming fluid" means something more specific than "any liquid with which someone might happen to be embalmed."  It doesn't depend on an actual embalming to become embalming fluid; it's embalming fluid even if you pour it over your driveway.  The key is that it's a fluid produced for the specific purpose of embalming, whether or not someone is actually embalmed in it, and the fact that someone is embalmed in a fluid doesn't make that liquid "embalming fluid".  P.S. not sure that a modern web site's statement that honey was used as "embalming fluid" by the Egyptians tells us much about the specific meaning of the phrase, since it's A) obviously influenced by the use of the phrase in modern English; B) if an Egyptian were found immersed in honey, we would say honey, not embalming fluid; and C) embalming fluid refers to something produced for the purpose of embalming; that's the defining criterion.  The precise ingredients don't seem to be essential in determining whether something is or isn't embalming fluid.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also the matter of the bodily fluids displaced by the embalming fluid and drained from the body, which could be called embalming fluid by virtue of being a byproduct of the embalming process- but apparently aren't. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Not all embalming fluids are "embalming fluid".  That's how we know that it's idiomatic.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Pfftallofthemaretaken. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep using the lemming heuristic: it is in Collins. Furthermore, I see a slang sense in dictionary.reference.com, for which they cite The Dictionary of American Slang, Fourth Edition, 2007; if the slang sense exists, we need the entry anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems non-SOP to me. Like waiting room, drinking water, sleeping pill etc. The fact that it's not called embalming liquid is an interesting one too. --Zo3rWer (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good examples. You forgot sleeping tablet, which, if the sleep is deep, is also known as a brick. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or dining room, dancing girl, frying pan, cleaning fluid. I could be here all day --Zo3rWer (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * cycling shorts, eating knife, cleaning fluid, shitting dog, walking boot are all good too. Possibly not shitting dog. --Zo3rWer (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Apart from being a fried egg as well as a walking stick in the field of corpse preservation, there are also plenty of certified usages out there to do with "smoking embalming fluid" - "embalming fluid highs" and so on. So, if anyone cares to make an entry for sherm, wetdaddy, or fry stick they will probably want to blue-link to embalming fluid. -- A LGRIF  talk 12:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep—if there's a slang sense, then of course. But then the definition should reflect that slang sense. But then it would be weird to have the slang sense and not the definition of the actual thing. So keep. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a template,, for that very purpose. So that's not a reasonable rationale for keeping. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But we still need the entry itself for the slang term, if I understand correctly. Sooner or later somebody will write the slang definition. Can somebody please write the slang definition and put an end to this, please?? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Pfftallofthemaretaken and WikiTiki. re putting embalming fluid in a water gun and failing to embalm living people by squirting them with it: if I put pickling solution into a water gun and squirt it on people, they won't become pickled, but I don't think "pickling solution" (or "pickling liquid") is idiomatic; do you? - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it can just as easily be called "pickling solution" or "pickling liquid" (or perhaps, "pickling fluid") then it hasn't become set. bd2412 T 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep — I do not think this passes the "fried egg" test. It is SOP (i.e. any fluid intended for embalming, whether you put in a water pistol or a bucket). But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's likely a useful translation target, as there's probably a bunch of languages that use a single word for the concept. —Pengo (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC) [Also keep for slang usage, which is not SOP] —Pengo (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re slang terms. The terms I mentioned above are NOT slang terms for embalming fluid, they are joints or cigarretes or cigars etc. which have been soaked in embalming fluid. That is what the anti-drug educational books, articles, and web sites say. I do not feel like writing these entries, but the point is that you can find plenty of quotations of the type "... is made by dipping a cigarette into embalming fluid". This means that authorities understand that "embalming fluid" describes a certain substance that can be abused. (Not just any old fluid that might possibly be injected into a corpse, such as diluted honey). -- A LGRIF  talk 11:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those joints aren't soaked in actual embalming fluid, but in PCP, euphemistically called 'embalming fluid': []. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read some articles about this, for ex.[] and see that generally the people (agencies and so on) who write about this subject state that "embalming fluid" means literal embalming fluid, or PCP (as you say), or a mixture of the two. Given that "embalming fluid" in the literature can mean any of three things, i.e. has three definitions, plus we are seeing a use of embalming fluid for something other than embalming, and yet still being referred to as "embalming fluid", i.e. is similar to correction fluid or washing-up liquid, then that means the term complies with CFI rules and conventions. - Keep. - <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> talk 16:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BD2412, you're not proposing any relevance and I think you're absolutely right not to. Hypothetical points about what something doesn't do aren't good arguments. A brown leaf can't teleport, hence, it's idiomatic? Right. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, apples and oranges. "Brown" is not a gerund, and a "brown leaf" is not a leaf used to "brown" something. Explain why "fruit juice" is idiomatic and you will have answered your own question. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's a helpful argument. The analogy here is more akin to "correction fluid".  The word is idiomatic because it doesn't apply to just any fluid used for the purpose of correcting anything; water sprayed at unruly dogs may correct their behaviour, but it isn't "correction fluid".  If you apply solvent to ink or paint in order to correct a mistake, it still isn't "correction fluid".  The word doesn't refer to a single formula or set of ingredients; it can be made different ways and doesn't have to look the same; it's not a brand name and can be applied to substances used for a similar purpose from different sources.  The point that BD2412 has been making is that a word can also be determined to be idiomatic because the thing described retains its identity if used in ways not described by its name.  It doesn't cease to be "correction fluid" if you use it for something other than correcting things; if a catcher uses it to paint his nails, it's still "correction fluid", not "nail polish".  So it's not irrelevant at all.  Embalming fluid doesn't refer to "any fluid to which the word 'embalming' might be applied; nor does it cease to be embalming fluid if it's used for something other than embalming.  By contrast, "brown leaf" can refer to any leaf that's brown, with no limitation or exclusion; if it stops being brown, then it's no longer a "brown leaf."  That's why the phrase "brown leaf" is no more than the sum of its parts, while "embalming fluid" is idiomatic.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent analogy, but is actually the contrapositive of what I have been arguing, which is that "embalming fluid" is a fluid that performs the function of embalming only in narrowly defined circumstances. In the same sense, you couldn't throw "correction fluid" on a chronic misspeller and turn them into a correct speller (in fact you generally can't "correct" any mistake by putting correction fluid on it except removing a stray mark). However, both correction fluid and embalming fluid are still called by those names even where they are used in a way that can not lead to the result suggested by their names. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ƿidsiþ 06:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful term. Donnanz (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom et al. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)