Talk:nihil obstat

RFC discussion: February 2014
We have the ==Interjection== sense "Declaration used by the Catholic Church to indicate a book was been found not to have breached religious or moral norms". Should it be the ==Noun== sense "Declaration…", the ==Interjection== sense "", or both? And if it is the ==Interjection== sense "", then is it redundant to the other ==Interjection== sense, "No objections"? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When the RCC uses it (e.g. here), they're using it in Latin (where's it's a phrase, not a noun or an interjection), not in English. When it is used in English, it seems to be a noun, as in "at CUA the bishops on the board of trustees grant the nihil obstat in the name of the Holy See" and "The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are then printed on an early page of the book, giving the reader assurance that the book..." and "Once having obtained their nihil obstat, Noël and Ladeuze were then able to submit a properly sanctioned application to the Belgian scientific research foundation." I don't think anyone goes around exclaiming "Nihil obstat!" as they would if it were an interjection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So in English it's a noun only: our "Declaration" sense should be as is but sub ==Noun== and our "No objections" sense should be RFVed. Is it SOP in Latin? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so, because it the two words put together mean "nothing hinders", but the phrase as a whole means "nothing in canon law hinders the publication of this work". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to labeling as interjections standalone expressions that are not expressions of emotion and could be called phrases. Phrase may not always be accurate but it the inappropriateness of the definition is less. Hard categorization of the particular type of standalone expression is possible and vastly more linguistically useful than either of the misnomers. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and my carryover (from the entry) use of "Interjection" without objection above should not be construed otherwise (viz as endorsement). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've edited per the above discussion. I think it's good and am striking. Please unstrike and continue the discussion if needed, and of course edit further. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)