Talk:rank

RFV
Ety#2 sense#2 (chess) one of the eight horizontal lines of squares on a chessboard [the corresponding term for a vertical line is "file"].

In what way is this distinct from ety#2 sense#1? I would be surprised if there are any quotes out there which can make a distinction between senses #1 and #2. Spinning Spark  11:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a subsense of sense 1.  shows that the fuller dictionaries have either a sense or a subsense for the chess (and checkers) sense. DCDuring TALK  15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So do we have a formatting style for sub-senses? Spinning Spark  18:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we can use indentation to make it sense 1.1 rather than sense 2. I've done so. Equinox ◑ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Striking request. Spinning Spark  19:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Subsense is probably underused. It can make our longer PoS sections a little more comprehensible. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Having recently encountered one of the shorter Oxford dictionaries (I don't know the official name but it's bundled with the Amazon Kindle e-book reader), I agree: they manage to combine tiny snippets of useful encyclopaedic information with a very terse and hierarchical format for definitions. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The question Spinningspark raised about what citations would support the existence of a subsense is interesting. I find it difficult to address. Presumably one would need to find attributes or combinations of attributes unique to the subsense supported by the citations.  I'd be inclined to follow the lemmings if the word is used in the context claimed, because the difficulty in finding citations unambiguously supporting distinct attributes is quite high. If no other dictionary has the subsense, then we need to face the problem creatively. DCDuring TALK  22:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to find chess related cites and such a subsense undoubtedly exists. I have chess books on my own bookshelf which use the term repeatedly.  No, my original request was not for cites to support a subsense, but cites that support a separate sense altogether.  I suppose it is still an open question what counts as a sub-sense.  Should we have sub-senses for a body of soldiers?, police on parade?, ships in a convoy? All easily citable.  Maybe the chess sense is different because it refers to the squares of the board rather than the pieces arranged on it. Spinning Spark  08:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to say. For "existence", read "distinct, separate existence". Your conjecture might be right. Sometimes I don't even notice such common metonyms. DCDuring TALK  12:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

ranks (plural noun): ordinary soldiers
ranks (plural noun): members of the armed forces who are not officers, or the ordinary members of any organization who do not hold high office Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This ranks fairly high on my list
Is rank a copulative verb in This ranks fairly high on my list ? what PoS is high here? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * High (adverb) https://www.oed.com/oed2/00106033 vs (adjective) https://www.oed.com/oed2/00106032. Rank (verb) https://www.oed.com/oed2/00197225 --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

rank with
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/rank+with+(someone+or+something) --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is rank higher than an idiom but not rank high? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)