Talk:have an affair

have an affair
See affair. I get that Dan is probably realising that whether to use "have", "make" or "do" with a given noun isn't always obvious, but I don't think this is the solution. Better to have usage examples at affair. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one source tells me that "affair" in the pertinent sense is usually used in the phrase "have an affair". So the very existence of the sense in "affair" would be the result of this tendency to find the minimum phrase at all costs. As a user of the dictionary, I think I am better served by having both "have an affair" and "affair"; ditto probably for have sex. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I overstated my case. I admit that we need a noun entry for "affair" in the sense, as in "Their affair was discovered". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Both "have" and "affair" are ambiguous. Pur ple back pack 89  20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All English is ambiguous. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we'll have to have more two- and three-word entries then, to resolve the ambiguity. Pur ple back pack 89  20:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A usage example and redirect should be sufficient. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's no better than have an orange (for Purplebackpack89, both 'have' and 'orange' are ambiguous). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly have nothing better than to make low-level digs at me? Not only is that a personal attack, it's also inaccurate: there are multiple definitions of "affair" that take indefinite articles: one means "party" and one means "repeated instances of sexual intercourse".  There is one of orange: the fruit.  How 'bout making an actual argument instead of unnecessarily tearing me down? Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As usual you claim that a solid argument is a "personal attack". Renard is quite right: if you looked at orange you would see four noun senses. Equinox ◑ 20:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There may be four definitions, but they're not all countable. The phrase "have an orange" pretty clearly refers to the fruit, because all the other things are either a) uncountable, b) can't be "had" per se, or c) aren't in common parlance.  As such, "have an affair" is not analogous to "have an orange", and it was wrong for Renard Migrant to personalize it in the way he did. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact you refer to this as a personal attack, that's definitely a personal attack on me. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack89 and Renard Migrant should ideally quit this fruitless conversation, but especially Purplebackpack89, since there really is no personal attack in "for Purplebackpack89, both 'have' and 'orange' are ambiguous". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , It's wrong for Renard Migrant to presume he knows what I believe. This is the latest in a series of low-level digs by Mglovesfun and he. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misinterpreted his comment: I read "for Purplebackpack89" as equivalent to "for the benefit of Purplebackpack89", that is, he was explaining it in terms tailored to your line of argument, so he mentioned you specifically. I don't think he was saying the equivalent of "Purplebackpack89 is so ignorant, he thinks that...". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not directly analogous to "have an orange". Tell me, why should we keep have sex? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you automatically assume that Renard wants to keep "have sex"? The prior existence of an entry does not mean that everyone supports it, only that nobody has nominated it for deletion yet. Are you suggesting that you think we should have "be married", "get married", "have a wife", "have a spouse", etc.? They are all "attestable". Does any other dictionary have them? No, because most other dictionaries aren't staffed by loons. Equinox ◑ 00:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that anybody who wants to keep those things, or even keep have sex, is a loon? Sure looks that way. , you need to settle down and stop throwing the word "loon" around. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop whining. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, everybody needs to stop, take a deep breath, and get back to discussing the matter at hand instead of personalities and conduct. At this point, who started it and who said what to whom is beside the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to assume anything; Renard can clarify himself whether he wants have sex deleted. My point is that likening "have an affair" to "have an orange" is silly, and that one actually needs to use one's powers of discernment beyond that kind of silliness. Reasoning about "have sex", whether leading to keeping or deleting "have sex", goes beyond the "have an orange" rubish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. While PBP is right that "affair" has multiple countable senses, the phrase have an affair can refer to any of them, not just one of them. Anyone encountering the phrase "have an affair" and not understanding it will simply have to look up affair and then use context to determine which of the various meanings is intended. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Have has a lot of possible meanings, therefore wouldn't any phrase with 'have' in it be potentially ambiguous. Having dictionary entries for the unidiomatic misses the point on how people interpret language; they get the meaning of 'have' from the context where dictionary entries appear in isolation. A very good example would by face sex which I didn't know was Romanian until I clicked on it. But in a Romanian sentence... I know it's Romanian (or at least not English) so I don't need to know what it is. Also I tagged Purpleback in my comment because it was a reply to his. If any reply is a personal attack... then surely his reply to me is a personal attack. Why can't he judge himself by his own standard if he can judge me by them? If making a legitimate reply to a legitimate comment is to be barred... how can we even have an RFD debate? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some nouns go with : "do work", "do drugs", "do a good deed", "do laundry" etc. Some go with : "have dinner", "have sex", "have fun", "have a fight", etc. It doesn't always make sense why we "have sex" instead of "doing sex" or why we "do drugs" instead of "having drugs", so these things have to be remembered for each noun. Of course some of them can be used with both with a slight change in meaning, e.g. "have dinner" (meaning "eat a dinner") vs. "do dinner" (meaning "organize a dinner"). Thus, "have an affair" is nothing special. It should simply be noted on each noun's entry which verb it is used with (i.e. in a usage example, as a usage note, or however else). --WikiTiki89 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I've never used the phrase "do an affair" or "do affairs" before. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the comment you responded to did it say anything about the phrase "do an affair"? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Parallelism. The compares "have sex" to "do sex", "have drugs" to "do drugs", and "have dinner" to "do dinner".   Why mention all those unless you're comparing "have an affair" to "do an affair?"  Otherwise, "do sex", "do drugs", or "do dinner" aren't relevant to this discussion. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   04:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I said that "do sex" and "have drugs" are not used (at least commonly). Second of all, my point was that even though it is not always possible to guess which verb will be used with the noun, the phrases formed with the verb and the noun are still SOP. We would have to have an entry like this for pretty much every action-related noun in the English language. There is a comparable situation in French, where it is not always possible to guess whether or  would be used to form the  of a verb, but those forms of the verb are still SOP and we do not have separate entries for them. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we shouldn't have entries for that, but we should explain both of those things in some way or another. I took French as a foreign language for four years in HS and two semesters in college.  Every French dictionary or textbook I had a list in the back of the book of which verbs use être.  Likewise, maybe we should have a list someplace of "phrases with do", "phrases with have", "phrases with go" and "phrases with be".   Four pages that, if they existed, would add immense utility. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We actually have at least the beginnings of such a list in table form at Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And see also Light verb. One possible presentation would be to have light verb constructions at the simple verbs they are equivalent to. I think that covers a large percentage of the cases. It would have the advantage of piggybacking on the already present translations at those entries. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For French, we already include the information in the conjugation tables (although a list might be useful as well). For the problem at hand, I have already said that I think we should include usage examples or usage notes showing which verb should be used with the noun. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I might say keep as a translation target. I found half a dozen (non-SoP) idiomatic Chinese terms with this meaning and "to have an affair" seems to match better than "to cheat". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep at least as a translation target, per Anatoli. (I already made a post above, but without bold keep.)--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added a bunch of translations and fixed the headword, added translation target cat. More translations (fixes) are welcome. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to affair, preferably. Otherwise just keep I suppose. Ƿidsiþ 06:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as translation target.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * RFD kept as no consensus for deletion (4 keeps, 5 deletes including non-boldface ones - Equinox, Renard). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–November 2022
Previously RFD'd and kept for no consensus, which was unsatisfying. Dunderdool (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, belongs as a collocation at affair and appendix:DoHaveMakeTake. This, that and the other (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That appendix is so ugly, someone who is good at making things pretty should make it pretty. At least standardizing the width of the columns from table to table. - TheDaveRoss  12:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reason given by This, that and the other. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as THUB, there are non-SOP translations there. AG202 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those could go under . Binarystep (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Binarystep There's a difference between "to cheat" & "to have an affair" though. The latter puts an emphasis on the fact that the person is in a married relationship. You wouldn't say that a teenager "had an affair" when they cheated on their high school boyfriend, for example. They're different in usage, and as such, having the translations at "cheat" wouldn't be as accurate. AG202 (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there’s … Unfortunately it’s archaic. We have some translations there. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that WT:THUB should be the most precise terms for the translation. There are problems with slangier or more archaic terms. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly SOP. Translations can go at affair (adulterous relationship) and if necessary new translation header "to have an adulterous relationship" there. Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * that's an interesting solution. Have we applied this in any other entries? — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That I don't know. But I think it would be more useful as it would be more likely to be found there than under have an affair, engage in an affair, indulge in an affair, etc. Facts707 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * it’s worth discussing further. Maybe bring it up at the Beer Parlour? — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This will break the translation hub logic since the concerned non-English entries will have to use affair as the hub. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Something tells me it's easier to keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WT:THUB as per Talk:have an affair and there Anatoli; affair does not work since that is a nouns sense. Present in Farlex Dictionary of Idioms and McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WT:THUB, more correct and precise than cheat or something colloquial like run around. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept: 4 keeps, 4 deletes, no 2/3-majority for deletion and no override applied (WT:VP); THUB is a policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)