Talk:laserjet

Request for verification
I'm seeing this everywhere as LaserJet, a capitalised Hewlett-Packard trademark &mdash; not as an adjective or in lower case. Equinox ◑ 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Two of the quotations have extended the meaning, but the third is just a miscapitalized brand name. I have heard the same in spoken use.  If it does pass CFI, I would consider it a rare mistake and label it non-standard, as well as trademark. —Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:16 z 
 * Which  ones? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two are using laserjet as a synonym for laser printer. LaserJet is HP's trademark, so obviously the Samsung and other laserjets quotation doesn't intend to refer to HP LaserJets.  I'd like to see the 1994 quote in context, but it's clearly making the same mistake, and it's been fixed or removed in the 10th edition, available for online preview  (it also doesn't agree in number, so I'd like to check that).  I really hope this doesn't pass CFI. —Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:59 z 
 * Eactly. I believe that "laserjet" is commonly used to mean "laser printer". That is what I have defined as a noun. I believe that it usually used attributively. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited as lower case noun. I'll leave it to someone else to find evidence of true adjectivity beyond attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Passed in noun sense, changed to rfv-sense for adjective. DAVilla 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not passed – the 2009 citation refers to HP's printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editing mistake, and not a clear citation supporting the generic use of the term. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 17:18 z 


 * The rfv was for the adjective. It is the unchallenged noun that has been cited. I doubt that anyone could cite predicate use or comparative/superlative/graded use. But perhaps someone will. I don't see how one could be certain about the specific usage instance being a mistake. Was it subsequently corrected by author or publisher? DCDuring TALK 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If it may be a mistake, then it's not a clear qualifying citation for CFI, is it? Shall I post another RFV for the noun sense then? —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 19:07 z 


 * Anything might be a mistake. The text is presumed correct. In this case a plain reading does not suggest any obvious error. Put in an RfV for the noun if you wish. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A plain reading suggests to me that the short article is poorly edited, using ink jet cartridges, inkjet printers, laser printers generally, and laserjet printers specifically for HP's LaserJets.


 * Filed at, below. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:18 z 

Noun RFV passed; after Mzajac's last objection, DCDuring added several new cites that I think are very compelling. Adjective RFV failed, removed: no cites. —Ruakh TALK 03:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification
[ laserjet (n) ]

See also (adj), above.

The 2009 citation uses “laser printers” generally, and “laserjet printers” specifically for to HP's laser printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editorial mistake, and not a clear citation of this term for “laser printer” generally. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:17 z 

It also appears to be a blog posting, cited without page number of any print publication. It's not clear that it qualifies as an attestation in permanent media. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:31 z 


 * The 2004 quote also lacks a print citation. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:36 z 

Appears to have been passed by Ruakh in November of 2009. DAVilla 05:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)