Talk:private

private
"Pertaining to the genitalia." The only example given is "private parts" (which already has its own entry). If this really means "pertaining to the genitalia", I would expect it to be able to replace genital generally, but such phrases like "private tumour", "private examination", etc. presumably don't exist. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like more of an rfd issue: it's really redundant- or should be- to one of the other senses: they're "private parts" because one keeps them to oneself. Besides, it's somewhat circular: genitalia is synonymous with private parts, so substituting it would yield "(pertaining to (private parts)) parts". Or perhaps rfc for the whole entry, because the senses overlap in vague sorts of ways, with the first being worded in a rather overly-inclusive way: "Belonging to, concerning, or accessible" looks like what would have been there before some of the other senses were split off. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an rfd issue, if it's attested to mean genital it's probably distinct. Let's cite it first, if we can, then worry about if it's redundant or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Private area" gets a lot of hits on GB, and "private section" gets one relevant hit as well. I wonder if this meaning can be used with any other words, however. How about a usage note saying something like "with words such as "parts, area and section"? --BB12 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But also "private organ". I'd think that's more than sufficient evidence. DAVilla 04:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But what makes you feel sure that, in "private organ", private means "relating to the genitalia", rather than it being the same as "private parts" where it seems to mean something hidden away that you don't show to the public? Equinox ◑ 04:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Because in at least one case, the man "exposed his private organ" which does not make it any more public. DAVilla 05:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If a man showed his "private diary" to the police, or to a crowd, or posted it online, it only means that it was private beforehand. Am I missing something? Equinox ◑ 05:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to separate the practical sense of private; what they managed to keep hidden, from the theoretical sense; how they felt about it. It could remain a "private diary" online, if published anonymously/discretely and/or without their knowledge, and/or it could become a "public journal" after being perhaps partly censored/promoted and/or more effectively edited.--Riverstogo (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case "private" applies to the nature of such things as a class, not to the details of a particular example. In the same way, they're called "reproductive" organs, even if they belong to a child or a lifetime celibate. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case the nature can be that the class is intended for "private" use, where details of particular examples are discouraged. In the same way, they're called "symbolic" organs, even if they belong to a child or a lifetime celebrity. Think about Mattel's Barbie or Caravaggio's David.--Riverstogo (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Chuck Entz: exactly! - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Equinox there is an overlap in the senses which allows more freedom for any individual use of private. From a distance initially, a potentially dangerous private tumour could indeed be easy to disregard, but on a closer private examination an abnormal growth may curiously stand out. Parts, area and section; being more vague terms, are more often used to refer to a private organ in public to avoid conveying too much information to those who are not ready or willing to accept the sufficient evidence of one's private belonging. At least without the safety of verification.--Riverstogo (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Equinox here. Ƿidsiþ 06:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, tend to agree with Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

privet
Potential misspelling of private- search "privet eye". Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)