Talk:handless

RFV discussion: November 2013–March 2014
Sense: "without a handle". Sounds illogical or erroneous. Equinox ◑ 23:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds erroneous to me too, but I'm finding quite a few cites, especially handless jugs. Spinning Spark  16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The leftover dough from the loaves would be rolled out with a handless, wooden, rolling pin
 * named the "Handless" because it has no pinch handles.
 * handless jug filled with cow's milk.
 * She gave him a few coppers from the handless jug
 * a small rickety table, supporting a cracked basin and a handless jug
 * One battered, spoutless, handless, japanned-tin jug, that did not contain water, for it leaked
 * Four covered lacquer bowls sat on the tray, along with a steaming jug and two of the small handless cups
 * The bowls with undulating handles and the shallow handless ones in decolorized glass are possibly of Italian origin
 * Two characteristic porcelain utensils — the tokkuri (a slender-necked, handless jug) and the sakazuki (a small, often shallow, cup) — are used when sake is enjoyed.
 * But the most common symptom of the malady is an insane passion for old halfpence, headless images, and handless jugs, which the patient calls medals, statues, and vases.
 * But when breakfast began, neither butter nor sugar was to be seen ; and only a few spoonfuls of sky-blue milk remained in the handless jug.
 * The two complete vessels included a cup printed with the badge of the US Army Medical Department and a small handless cup [or] beaker with white glaze and no decoration
 * one handless cup with frieze of linear decoration in relief
 * Chinese soup is sipped in a handless cup (Chinese soup bowl) with its own soupspoon.
 * Fazar just lifted the small handless cup to his lips again.
 * Leta's mother, Dona Carmen, put some of the leaves in the handless cup.


 * A syllabic consonant followed by another that's identical except for being non-syllabic is very awkward, so the combination gets simplified- illogical from the point of view of word-formation rules, but very logical from the point of view of phonotactics. The spelling tries to maintain the distinction, but people sometimes forget. I would change it to an alternative form or misspelling of handleless Chuck Entz (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It also turns up in scholarly journals, which speaks against it being a misspelling. Spinning Spark  17:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverless reservoirs were found to be the main probable source of coliform bacteria via birds' feces while handless utensils used normally for drinking are the most [common] source of coliform bacteria in public stands.
 * Small handless cups
 * a small handless cup
 * described as a 'biconical handless open vessel'


 * This Ngram is also interesting. There has been a collapse of the use of "handleless" in favour of "handless" since around 1950.  I would be pretty sure that that is not due to a rapid increase in the number of people without hands in the world. Spinning Spark  18:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet if you try to compare "handless jug" or "handless cup" with "handleless jug" or "handleless cup", the Ngram viewer can't find the "handless" forms at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but it finds precious few of the "handleless" form either, so I don't think that statistic is particularly significant. Spinning Spark  00:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The cites and explanation seem plenty good enough to have a two-etymology/two-definition entry. The remaining questions are about what the entry should say: Is it an ordinary entry with qualifying labels, an alternative spelling, a misspelling based on reduced pronunciation (as Chuck said), or something else. It seems hard to argue for it being eye dialect, given the apparently formal context of most of the citations. It does seem much less common than handleless and, in the overwhelming portion (>>90%) of uses, handless has to do with human or clock hands, not handles. It does not seem nearly common enough to be a "common misspelling", means we would exclude it if we were to accept the view that it is a misspelling. It seems to me more like an emerging word than an alternative spelling of handleless.
 * I therefore conclude that it should be an ordinary entry with labels and/or usage notes that discourage use without saying that it is non-standard. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

without a hand or hands
without a hand or hands. Partial synonym of one-handed? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)