Talk:idiom

RFC discussion: July 2010
The phrase-oriented linguistics definition depends on the reader having knowledge of foreign languages, an unreasonable expectation for a large segment of our users. It is arguably a criterion, rather than a definition and may have been intended to be POV. As a definition it does not correspond to what SIL offers. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the definition is ok, we just lack the one that you've cited. In class at uni we'd talk about "idiomatic translations" referring to this sort of thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a polyglot or a linguist would find it OK. Operational criteria rarely serve well as a definition, however important they are for a dictionary. We do not define "adjective" as a word that satisfies more than one of a some set of conditions. Still worse is a definition based on a single criterion, let alone one whose illustration cannot be accomplished without using foreign languages. Perhaps we need to RfV the sense. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. Literal translateability is a good (though not perfect) test for idiom-ness, and it may be a major reason that people care about idiom-ness, but it's not what idiom-ness actually means. Even if there existed only one language, that language could still have idioms. What would you think of a definition like this? :
 * An expression whose meaning is separate from the meanings of its component words.
 * 2008, Patricia Hampl, “You’re History”, in Patricia Hampl and Elaine Tyler May (editors), Tell Me True: Memoir, History, and Writing a Life, Minnesota Historical Society, ISBN 9780873516303, page 134:
 * You’re history, we say . Surely it is an American idiom. Impossible to imagine a postwar European saying, “You’re history. . . . That’s history,” meaning fuhgeddaboudit, pal.
 * —Ruakh TALK 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is fine. I am aware of the incredible difficulty in getting more specific than that definition. The literal translatability criterion must mean "over several languages" as it may be that one or more of French, German, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Yiddish, and Latin may have the same expression. I am very skeptical of a definition that implies that one needs to consult a committee of polyglots (or other experts) who are also expert in English (say en-4) to know something about an aspect of English.
 * I have been reading Lexical Semantics, D. A. Cruse, 1986. I did not find any improvement on the definition you offer. But, based on my reading I have been thinking of classifying the terms in Category:English idioms as "set phrases", "inflecting true idioms", "bound collocations", and "dead metaphors" to see which ones don't fit in those categories, revisit their appropriateness, and develop additional categories. I am hoping to develop an adequate scheme for reducing controversy over the multi-word terms we include. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Striking. I've implemented my proposal. (Of course, y'all are welcome to make any improvements.) I look forward to your scheme, DCDuring, if and when you've developed it. —Ruakh TALK 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

uncountable
What meaning(s) are (or can be) uncountable? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question. All of the definitions start with A or An, agreeing with my understanding that all listed meanings are countable, so I'm going to change it to only countable. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 15:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is used uncountably. I'm not sure about senses other than the first, but you can find uncountable usage of much idiom, which clearly demonstrates uncountability. DCDuring (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Double negation in definition of sense 3
Is the double negation intentional? How about "An established expression whose meaning may not be deducible [...]"?--Roland Wingerter (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Your wording looks good to me. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)