Talk:faster-than-light

Um... faster, than, light? &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Words exist for many non-existing and unproven things and concepts - why not for this? --Hekaheka 09:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP unless anyone can prove otherwise. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that it's SoP. Sorry for not being clear. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep established set term in physics and beyond....consider the non-existence of faster-than-sound. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep because it actually means faster than light in a vacuum. Particles can in fact move faster than light in water. But nothing can move faster than light. -- A LGRIF  talk 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete What difference does physics make for a decision about keeping this? From the arguments made, it's as if we think we're an encyclopedia. Almost every phrase ever used in English has a specific meaning-in-context that is not exactly in the dictionary definition of the components.
 * At some point, perhaps when we have completed the job of defining all (lemma) words at least as well as an "abridged" dictionary like Longman's DCE with etymologies, pronunciations, and complete translation sections and have all lemmas of a 2nd-rank "unabidridged" dictionary like RHU or AHD, we could take on the job of defining every adjective or adverb phrase that has ever been hyphenated and then everything that met any one of the Pawley criteria. We should be at that point by the New Year if the 100 most active English-language editors put the finishing touches on just 50 lemmas a day. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment completely misses the point. People work according to their own priorities; there is not some "master list" of vital information which we need to add before turning our attention to "lesser" considerations. faster-than-light is a specific, set concept and is therefore idiomatic in the true sense: this is the one and only way we express this concept in English (and it is often rendered as a single word in other languages, eg Spanish superlumínico). It does no damage and provides much useful information. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting away from arguments based on physics.
 * The translation-target argument has not achieved consensus acceptance.
 * I would enjoy seeing objective evidence about what makes this a set phrase. I don't think that we can rely on personal opinion alone.
 * The damage done is misleading users into believing that the English language is chock-full of "idioms" which are in fact readily inferrable from the components. Further, the whimsy that characterizes our choice of included multi-word terms makes the project seem amateurish and arbitrary. Amateur lexicographers is what we may be; amateurishness is what we seek to avoid. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to say an idiom's meaning cannot be inferred from its component parts, or indeed that it cannot be downright obvious from its component parts: that is just a misconception among some people who dislike sum-of-parts entries and have not bothered to look up idiom. But leaving translation aside, consider that this is a single word (because of the hyphens). Saying that X is "faster than light" may not be idiomatic, but talking about a "faster-than-light" X surely is. That's why I think the comparison with faster than sound is revealing. As for the amateurishness, the entry doesn't seem amateurish at all to me, but I suppose that's subjective. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 16:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The physics argument has value too y'know. I use it to demonstrate that this is not even SoP. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FTL ?? -- A LGRIF  talk 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes me think of rain stopped play, a cricket term referring to an instance where [[rain]] [[stopped]] [[play]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree with Widsith that "this is the one and only way we express this concept in English" ( is well attested in this sense, though it also has a different one) and with Algrif that it's not SOP because "in a vacuum" is implied (that's often true when speaking of the speed of light, so is not a specific property of this collocation); but if a speaker treats something as an idiom, then arguably it is an idiom for that speaker, and if it's an idiom for enough speakers, then arguably it's worth including, even if there are many speakers who use the same expression without treating it as an idiom. Admittedly, "treat as an idiom" can be hard to quantify, but hyphenating-and-prepending is suggestive; as Widsith says, "the faster-than-sound plane" is pretty awkward, even though "the plane is faster than sound" is pretty O.K. Also, Visviva has suggested that we err on the side of keeping things that might be SOP, and I have a general policy of never disagreeing with him, so … —Ruakh TALK 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We're gradually devolving to mere voting on these matters. This wouldn't be so bad if the voters were representative of the users. We don't seem even to place any value in what professional lexicographers say, some of whom have had some budget to find out things about users.
 * As to the definition of idiom the definition element on which lexicographers agree is non-SoPitude. The Pawley list seems to be a laundry list of every rationale for idiomaticity known to man, short of the idiom-by-vote approach.
 * I doubt that there will ever be a user who wants to know what faster-than-light means. They might want some high-sounding synonyms or some encyclopedic information. Including "faster-than-light" in the definition of superluminal or making it a redirect to superluminal would serve those users quite well and also the translators who can't be happy without a blue link. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I neglected to mention the set-phrase and ungrammaticality criteria which are more frequently mentioned by definers of idiom than the other items on the Pawley laundry list. This expression is certainly not ungrammatical. "Faster than light" affords numerous substitutes in the "fast" and "light" slots. It is simply a question of being more explicit than we have ever been willing to be about quantifying the level of relative frequency (and on what corpora) that merits "set"ness. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If faster-than-light means faster than the speed of light, that might be idiomatic, because it's ellipsis. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 15:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Kept, passes rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)