Talk:opening

RFD discussion: November 2019–March 2020
"Pertaining to the start or beginning of a series of events." This is arguably just the present participle of. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Surjection, very true. I added this sense, though, because it can be used adjectivally, as the example that I have provided illustrates, and not just as a verbal participle, as in: "The venue doors were just opening as I arrived." I am no expert here, and am eager to have feedback on this point of grammar.
 * The quote which is provided for the sense begins, "The opening act of the battle for Fort Sumter". In that case 'opening' can be defined simply as 'that which opens' which is the same form of definition that every participle has when used as an adjective. So I would delete the sense as being normal non-idiomatic usage of a participle. -Mike (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It fails the usual (but not definitive) adjectivality test of being gradable: whereas you can say, “his statement was very eye-opening”, you can’t say, *“his statement was very opening”. I’m not too sure about the cricket senses either; isn‘t the opening batsman simply the batsman who opens (the innings), just like the starting quarterback is the quarterback who starts (the play)? Inasmuch as this is idiomatic, it is the participle–noun combination, not the participle by itself, just like we have an entry for . --Lambiam 07:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added three references where it is listed as an adjective. It fails Lambiam's test because it's attributive, and that type of adjective doesn't have to be gradable. There is an entry for, by the way. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If examples were no more than "opening door" = "door that is/was opening", I would say delete per Mike, but my view is that uses such as "opening remarks" or "opening act" are just about distinct or non-generic enough to warrant this entry, so keep.
 * I will add that there is an Adjective pos entry for, and logicially if one exists then the other should too. -Mike (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)