Talk:fat as a cow

fat as a pig
These are really not idioms but simple comparisons of which you could construct potentially infinite examples of, just by taking any exceptionally large object. -- Liliana • 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You could replace them with just about any other animal but these two are by far infinitely more common, almost set phrases. No one ever says you're as fat as a rhinoceros...a whale ( when water or the beach is in context) yes, and cow and pig. Leasnam (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Undecided for the moment but there are other, very similar expressions with comparisons, which probably passed RFD or RFV. Is it an RFV case, rather than RFD? I think there is a limited number of animals/things you compare a fat person with. Slavs (at least some Slavic languages) use pigs (male or female varieties) but commonly barrels, e.g. Russian: "толстый как бочка", Polish: "gruby jak beczka". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are a few from a 1917 dictionary of similes:


 * Fat as a bacon-pig at Martlemas. — Anon.
 * Fat as brawn. — Ibid.
 * Fat as a sheep's tail. — Ibid.
 * A red bag, fat with your unpaid bills, like a landing net. — Dion Boucicault.
 * Fat as Mother Nab. — Samuel Butler.
 * Fat as a whale. — Chaucer.
 * Fat as a barn-door fowl. — Congreve.
 * Fat as seals. — Charles Hallock.
 * Fatte as a foole. — Lyly.
 * As fat as a distillery pig. — Scottish Proverb.
 * As fat as a Miller's horse. — Ibid.
 * Fat as butter. — Shakespeare.
 * Fat as tame things. — Ibid.
 * Fat and fulsome to mine ear
 * As howling after music. — Ibid.


 * Fat as grease. — Old Testament.
 * Some would quite likely be from well-known works and therefore would thereby pass RfV without regard to whether they were otherwise common. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what's your vote on this? Having a variety of similes is not a reason to discard them. Some of the above would be includable, IMO. They are quite useful for language learners, especially the common ones but I'll wait for other opinions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your criterion favoring "common" but not merely attestable similes has nothing to do with WT:CFI. It seems like a BP matter, possibly even a vote. There are lots of amusing similes (happy as Larry, happy as a clam at high tide, happy as a pig in shit) that are common among some groups during some periods. Some of them seem arbitrary (eg "Larry") and thereby possibly idiomatic, others seem to make a great deal of sense, ie, be transparent. But as our coverage is supposed to span a time periods for which we cannot rely on unaided intuition, I think we would need to be able to apply our standard rules of attestation and non-transparency to similes.
 * Thus I would be happier with happy as Larry than with fat as a pig as an entry. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang (2005) agrees with my inclusion instincts and criteria. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I favour common over temporary expressions. "Happy as Larry" is not very useful for language learners, almost like an in-joke. My mother-in-law liked to say a rhyme "healthy as Trunov" (referring to a long-time mayor of a city named Trunov who I never knew, implying he's healthy because he is a mayor, probably very corrupt, so he has money to look after himself) . It was fun to say this in the family but if I said this to another Russian, they wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about. Is [[sly as a fox]] idiomatic enough? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just us and McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. I'd think we'd be doing language learners a better service if we bothered to translate the entries in Category:English phrasal verbs, but naybe they are too hard. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just us and McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. I'd think we'd be doing language learners a better service if we bothered to translate the entries in Category:English phrasal verbs, but naybe they are too hard. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete both, unless it is shown that they are needed solely as a translation target for an idiom that is uniquely meaningful in some other language (which I doubt). Metaphors are cheaply transparent, unless the asserted comparison does not automatically assume the characteristics of the operative adjective (e.g. fit as a fiddle). bd2412 T 12:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep similes, or at least high-frequency similes, even if transparent, since they are useful for the encoding direction ("How do I say 'very fat' using a simile?"), and for simile-to-simile translation ("How do I render 'fat as a pig' using a Spanish simile?"). As for the examples listed by DCDuring, I wonder whether they are attested in use to convey meaning; for instance, does not suggest as much. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious SOP. I suggest common similes of this sort be listed in a usage note sub the adjective (or adverb as the case may be, in this case fat, e.g. "Common exemplars for flat, used in similes, are a board (emphasizing lack of protrusions) and a pancake (emphasizing thinness)") and/or in an appendix devoted to such similes. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the advantage of listing these in usage notes rather than in separate entries, which can be linked to separate translations, which will not necessarily be word-for-word translations? Per fat as a cow, Italian and Polish would be like fat as a barrel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never heard "happy as Larry" and I would vouch for "happy as a pig in mud" (but not "shit", never heard that before either). Keep. Its a set phrase comparison that has some members (like pig, though not all pigs are fat necessarkly) more transparent than others ( like whale). Comparable to "as hungry as a horse" & "as big as a house" (oh yeah? my house is tiny.) Leasnam (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are we supposed to care whether any individual has not heard of a given expression? DCDuring TALK 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't. And did I don't see where anyone has asked anyone to. Its an indicator of how common a word or phrase is Leasnam (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per all (Dan Polansky). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll express my frustration at these successful attempts to remove valid lexicographical content. Before the deletion of fat as a pig, we told our readers how to say this in multiple languages using a simile; now this is gone. A real substantive rationale for this deletion is absent; the only rationale that I see is reduction to rules. People keep on repeating "sum of parts" as if this were a monolingual dictionary. I find the above DCDuring's list of mostly unattested similes particularly disingenuous and objectionable; not only are most of these items unattested but the argument they are used for contradicts WT:CFI; as for "Some would quite likely be from well-known works", we now have WT:CFI without the well-known work criterion, via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3. Also, the nomination is blatantly wrong ("... just by taking any exceptionally large object"); try or . --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Restore and keep fat as a pig. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored fat as a pig as requested, for further discussion; additional participation would be helpful at this point. bd2412 T 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fat as a pig. We already define pig as a corpulent person, so this is redundant. Might be an O.K. redirection, though. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The existence of "pig" as a fat person does not suffice for the conclusion that people actually say "fat as a pig"; lardo means a fat person, but people do not say "fat as a lardo", as per . Furthermore, you have conventiently disregarded the added-value argument: the entry hosts multiple translations to other languages that cannot be obtained by word-for-word translations, e.g. Polish "gruby jak beczka". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ‘Lardo’ seems uncommon to begin with. Google Books reveals many false positives. Many words like 当兵 have definitions that are clearly sum‐of‐parts, but we don’t need to create entries for those particular definitions. Though I will admit that you made me somewhat less certain for the time being. —Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

After restoring and reopening for further discussion, the only new data point added was an additional vote to delete; therefore, re-deleted. bd2412 T 17:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)