Talk:intentional walk

intentional walk
Rfv-sense. The verb "to intentional walk". The example uses "intentionally walk", however I suspect this might be attestable as a nonstandard variant. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cited, using five of Google Groups' six Usenet hits for "intentional walked". (The sixth is from the same newsgroup as two of the others, and didn't seem to add anything special.) But overall it does seem to warrant some sort of "rare" or "nonstandard" tag. —Ruakh TALK 12:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. Thank you, citer. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This one is pretty ugly. I should elaborate; as a lifelong baseball fan I can say with certainty that while the noun is intentional walk: the verb form is intentionally walk:.  What you found on Google groups and on Usenet are people who don't really understand how English works. -  21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a "set phrase", the noun being used as a verb. This happens quite often, albeit usually with single word nouns, not two words nouns like this! This is why I suggested a tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If it makes sense for a pitcher to "walk" a batter (verbing the noun "walk"), then it can make sense for a pitcher to "intentional walk" a batter (verbing the noun "intentional walk"). It's not how I would say it, but I'm sure there are many people who understand how English works, but who nonetheless say things differently from how I would. —Ruakh TALK 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * walk:, being a transitive verb, should be modified by adverbs. If a pitcher walks someone in an intentional manner, they have been walked intentionally.  When walk: is used as a noun it should be modified by adjectives.  If a there is a walk which was thrown intentionally, it is an intentional walk.  In the baseball rulebook it is called an intentional base on balls, which is not helpful to us.  I am not saying we shouldn't include it, but since there is ample writing on the subject of baseball in periodicals and in books, can't we find a few cites which are from edited and published work? -  19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Or just edited, at least? Or written by someone with two names? There's only one really good example here, showing that it was deliberate. For all we know, the others could all be written by the very same person. Not that I believe that, necessarily, though I would say independence is nonetheless suspect. DAVilla 04:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Unstriking due to contention about the attestedness.) The 1991 quote from "clarinews" (a username, I strongly suspect, that actually represents a service of ClariNet) is actually seemingly by UPI (yet Google News isn't pulling it up, which makes me wonder). The 1994 Jonathan Schmitt quote is from an .edu account, and the e-mail username is schmittj, so it's probably his real name. That's two independent cites, if you like that analysis. And the other hits almost certainly represent at least one more person. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Restruck after some investigation. Also removed the "rare" label as it's anything but. DAVilla 06:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)