Talk:out hit the ball twice

out hit the ball twice
From RFV:

Noun. Surely this is both an adverb, and SoP (although that's an rfd issue). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely sum of parts (and someone's making a dog's breakfast of the base entry). SemperBlotto 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the rationale for your comment "making a dog's breakfast of the base entry"? That's a pretty strong criticism to have no explanation. Facts707 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first citation seems more in the nature of a mention than a use. In any event, it offers little to suggest how the term might be actually used on a cricket field by an umpire. Google news might be a better source. From that source, I have learned that this call has been made only 20 times since 1906 in first-class cricket, which suggests that both terms are likely "rare".
 * The 2003 citation does not support "noun" as I read it. Substituting the definition into the citation yields "The striker is [a ruling ...]", This doesn't seem a sensible reading. It seems to me that this is an adjectival phrase headed by "out". That would make "hit the ball twice" an adverb in this usage. But in the cases where "hit the ball twice" is used without "out" it seems to me to be an ellipsis for "out hit the ball twice" and thus also an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you're a New Yorker, it's comparable to a baseball entry for out caught - describing the baseball being caugh on the fly by a fielder. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I inferred from the citations: adjective. This is just a question of English grammar, isn't it? Cricket umpires do speak English, don't they? The semantics doesn't override the grammar. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have struck out and strike out, but possibly only because those terms are also used as metaphors for other common events. Facts707 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We also have foul out as both a noun and a verb for both baseball and basketball. Facts707 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could cite "a foul out", "the foul out", and "foul outs", all of which scream "noun". Can anyone cite either of these in parallel constructions? In baseball, both "foul" and "out" are used as adverb and noun, foul can be used as verb, and out can be used as adjective (predicate only). I read "foul out" as a combination of two nouns. But, as for comparable expressions for compound terms involving "out", baseball umpires and sports announcers don't say *"He is 'fouled out'" or *"He is 'out fouled'". DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to RFD and delete. There were no b.g.c. hits that could be construed as common nouns IMHO, but the entry now has all four that could be construed as proper nouns — and I think they make quite clear that the "out" and the "hit the ball twice" are two separate parts. —Ruakh TALK 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sum of parts, I was going to speedy delete it when it was created, but since Facts and I were in disagreement about hit the ball twice it would have looked like an abuse of administrative power. But anyway, delete, can't think of any possible defence for this. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can understand that out caught is more or less grammatical. Although the past participle, acting as an adjective, would normally precede the noun, it's not unheard of to follow it. But I'm not sure I've ever heard of this for a compound noun. Why isn't it called a "hit-the-ball-twice out"? DAVilla 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a noun. Or a proper noun. The logic the creator used "it's a rule in a rule book, so it's a proper noun". Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The order of out: and its adjunct modifiers would seem to be a matter of the grammar of out: and not a justification for including all of the instances of this grammar. DCDuring TALK 19:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, out caught, out bowled, out caught and bowled, out hit wicket. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's an adjective? That's mighty a strange framework grammatical. Keep all. DAVilla 07:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The closest thing I can imagine in baseball would be base on balls - which is SoP but also is a common term in baseball and wouldn't be understandable to someone with an understanding of the component words but without an understanding of baseball. I wondering if we should have base on balls and if so, does this shed any light on this rather confusing entry? Facts707 00:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how base on balls would be SoP even for an ardent baseball fan (such as myself, before MLB coverage was cancelled in the UK). Still, we wouldn't list base on balls as a proper noun because it appears in a rule book. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As an example, my Scrabble rule book has the rule EQUIPMENT (let's call it equipment). Under what I see as Fact's logic, he could enter equipment as "proper noun: a rule in Scrabble ". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, I take full responsibility for not deleting this the first time I laid eyes on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes one needs to have a discussion to clarify the logic and how it might apply, especially if the rules are not very complete and not understood by all the same way.. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)