Talk:gristle

RFV
Rfv-sense something young and unformed. I've never heard this sense before, and the predominance of the other sense (and the fact I have no idea what context this sense would come in) makes it hard for me to search for.--Prosfilaes 20:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the gristle, but that doesn't mean that this exists independently. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A sense of unhardened bone seems citeable, and perhaps some extension on that.
 * [ ... citations moved to page ... ]
 * —Pingku 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but if you see this message in time please move citations to the entry. This page is already long enough. Also you'll save the closer unnecessary work in copying them over. Otherwise just keep that in mind for future quotations. DAVilla 15:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Timed out. No citations for challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck. (RFV-failed senses removed.) - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

gristle
RfD-sense: 1. (by extension) Anything hard to accept. 2. (possibly metaphorical) Bone not yet hardened by age and hard work.

These senses seem like rare or uncommon literary metaphorical uses of the basic sense ("cartilage"). They don't seem to me to rise to the level of being understood in any other way than as metaphors. The reader has to resort to the literal sense to determine what meaning the author might intend. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The unhardened bone sense I thought might be from an outdated, perhaps popular theory of the relationship between gristle and bone (presumably implying a rudimentary at best understanding of anatomy). One of the citations is from a non-fiction work, less likely to be dealing in metaphor, but possibly indulging a pop theory. — Pingkudimmi 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should try to word our general context definitions so as not to be dependent on any but naive theories, but not ones that are "obviously" wrong. Metaphors sometimes reflect those naive theories.
 * The first sense above seems to build on a "chewing"/"digesting" metaphor for incorporating (metabolizing?) facts into one's mindset/worldview, "gristle" being hard to chew. This does not involve much of a reach beyond everyday experience, except for the very rich and vegetarians. But it still seems like an optional, occasional extension of the more basic metaphor of chewing/digesting than a meaning in itself.
 * The second does not seem to fit with the popular experience of embrittlement of bones with age. It also relies on what is neither observable directly nor supported by a social system of broad effect, like a religion, or a knowledge community.
 * Not every metaphor makes it into the lexicon. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think. I'm a bit confused by Pingku's comment. It is in fact literally true that most of the bones in our body, including for example the major bones of the arms and legs, develop from cartilage that is slowly replaced with bone tissue, and that this process isn't totally complete throughout the body until late adolescence or early adulthood. (See Bone.) This is why children's bones are generally much more flexible than adults'. That said, this literal anatomical fact clearly took on a life of its own as a figure of speech, a symbol of the softness of youth; and it's often even applied to non-physical firmness, e.g. in "Persecution and controversy wrought her [Christianity's] gristle into bone." It's no coincidence that all three of our cites are speaking of men; literature of the time did not portray women in a way compatible with the gristle-to-bone symbolism. (Don't get me wrong, you can find uses on b.g.c. that apply the metaphor to women, but they are clearly in a tiny, tiny minority, and the ones I've found are all of the non-physical-firmness type.) —Ruakh TALK 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I sheepishly rescind sneering rights with regard to anatomy. Perhaps I was thinking of sinew, which has much the same constituents as cartilage, but in different proportions, and has different functions. I gather that cartilage acts something like a matrix, out of which the bone develops, with the matrix disappearing by the end of puberty. In any case, the metaphorical usages don't match the established reality and seem to indicate a different model. — Pingkudimmi 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this an example of the differences among definitions based on popular/naive theories, dated "scientific" theories, and current scientific theories? The first may be also considered simple metaphors. The latter two (also often built on metaphors) seem to me to require context tags and non-topical categorization. The latter two especially also run the risk of becoming encyclopedic. (I use the existence of more than one sentence or more than two or three clauses as an indication of an encyclopedic definition.) DCDuring TALK 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps influenced by Aristotle, from such as: "The ears proceed from a dry and cold substance, called gristle, which is apt to become bone; ..." I suppose that would make it a dated "scientific" theory. — Pingkudimmi 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)