Talk:nemesis

RFV discussion: May–August 2022
Rfv-sense "A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent." Removed by (probably the same) IP twice out of process. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems similar to senses 3 and 4, and I'm not sure how well we could distinguish them in quotations. I think sense 3 is supposed to be uncountable, though, so that's a difference. I'm also not sure what the "manifested by an appropriate agent" part is adding. 70.172.194.25 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge senses 3, 4 and 6 into “ Retribution.” --Lambiam 09:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The definitions (3, 4, 6) seem distinct, but have no citations. After merger we still need an RfV. I also wonder which of these definitions should be viewed as, at the very least, dated. MW 1913 and Century 1913 only have definitions for Nemesis, which fact might speed searches for citations for the definitions of the lower-case form. Google Books shows only ~2% of usage for N/nemesis to be for the lowercase form in 1900-1909. DCDuring (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching for the (pleonastic) deserved nemesis finds some lower-case citations, as well as upper-cased uses of deserved Nemesis . --Lambiam 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of those cites seem to fit defs. 4 and 6 equally well. Some other dictionaries combine the punishing act with the result thereof to make a single definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This sense duality, the act and the result, is shared by and .  --Lambiam 08:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of words have defs. that cover both an act (etc.) and its consequence. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly is meant by sense 3, “the principle of retributive justice”? Does that mean something different from retribution being viewed as a deserved punishment? --Lambiam 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It must be an abstraction from and depersonalization of Nemesis. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not having citations puts us in the position of relying on each of our idiolects or somehow amalgamating other dictionaries' definitions without violating copyright. To me that means we need citations. Shortening the definitions to their essentials should help. The chance of finding citations that simultaneously and unambiguously support even three aspects of a definition is nil. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the same IP, me. Sorry if "out of process", I don't know what process this refers to and I don't remember seeing any mentioned in the editing screen. I attempted to open it for discussion in the edit summary. The "definition" was almost certainly added by someone directly quoting Snatch. I believe the definition was deliberately made up for the script as a cool thing for the character to say and is unsuitable as a dictionary entry. If it actually describes a sense of the word, it should be phrased in a more appropriate way. --2003:C9:471A:3700:11B7:EDF0:4BA3:F179 20:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Removed (RFV-failed, if you like, as there were no cites) as redundant to the other senses. I added cites to and tweaked various senses. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)