Talk:runaway

RFC
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up by User:Connel MacKenzie, but translations need to be checked, and Encarta dictionary says adjective can be added --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV
Rfv-sense X 2:
 * 1) out of control.
 * 2) who has run away.
 * These senses correspond to noun senses. I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective. See English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that in "a runaway train", that runaway is not an adjective?  I would also argue the same for "a runaway bride".  I rather suspect that the noun derives from the adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is possible that this was at one time used as a true adjective, but is used as one no more. Online Ety Dict puts the noun as having attestable use by 1547. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re EP's comment: AFAICT when a noun follows another to refer to an object that is primarily in the class denoted by the second noun but also in that denoted by the first, which also has members outside the class denoted by the second, and the primary intent of the dual terminology is to point out that the relatively unusual case that a member of the second class is also of the first — like with runaway bride and runaway train if runaway is not an adjective — then the stress goes on both terms, perhaps slightly stronger on the second, but never stronger on the first unless especially emphasized: an apprentice lawyer, a sword walking stick, etc. The same holds true here, which leads me to tend to accept that runaway may be just a noun. see also [[Wiktionary:English adjectives]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED isn't quite sure either. It puts (and adjective) in brackets and claims that the usage is attributive use of the noun, or as an adjective (though all of the cites seem to be attributive noun usages in my view).  Perhaps we should just add a usage note to the noun senses that some attributive usages can be considered adjectival.    D b f  i  r  s   08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I take it that OED has the notation at the top of the headword (or at the inflection line). Visviva had long ago suggested that we need some such treatment.
 * What has slowed me down is uncertainty about what would be effective in preventing users from adding an adjective PoS section notwithstanding what appeared in the noun section. I think the best place for some notation would be the inflection-line for the noun. The alternative of having an adjective section that directs users to the noun section would be more effective, but uglier. Part of the problem is that we have trained users to find PoS sections in alphabetical order, placing Adjective at the top of each language section. DCDuring TALK 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:guerrilla and sense 3 of guerrilla for why nothing this simple may work. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also added an RFV tag to the noun sense "An object or process that is out of control." (This raises an interesting conundrum: phrases of the form "runaway ____", meaning "out-of-control ____", are readily citeable, but what happens if we can't find any unambiguous-noun or unambiguous-adjective cites?) —Ruakh TALK 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited IMHO. But, interesting conundrum. I am inclined to credit grammar before semantics. I would posit that all senses (which seem more fluid than grammar) have license to flow into the syntactic slots made available by any one of the senses. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your cites clearly support a sense meaning "a runaway train"; is that just a consequence of the terms you used in finding those cites? Or is our definition just way too broad? (If the latter, then we still have the conundrum …) —Ruakh TALK 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added three cites, none of which are about trains. I think the now well-cited "process" sense needs a usually attributive tag. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! I've added the tag. I've also split the train thing out into its own sense. —Ruakh TALK 20:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "iron horse" (before pneumatic braking) as a transition between living and not-living runaways? Is that a linguistic or a non-linguistic, reality based shift is usage? DCDuring TALK 20:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To me there is no more reason to split train from other inanimates than to split runaway slaves/apprentices from runaway children (dominant modern use). DCDuring TALK 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K., then feel free to re-merge them. But maybe trains should be called out explicitly within the sense, at least? Just the fact that our example sentence and first three quotations (both chronologically and in terms of when you added them) were all referring to trains made me think that that was an original, primary, and somewhat independent usage; but you've obviously spent much, much more time investigating this word than I have, so I'm happy to defer to your judgments about it. —Ruakh TALK 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Runaway slave/apprentice/animal/horse/horse and carriage" => "runaway train/locomotive" => "runaway boiler" => "runaway process"? DCDuring TALK 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Runaway slave/apprentice" + "runaway horse" => "Runaway bride" => "runaway child"? DCDuring TALK 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've marked the noun sense "process that is out of control" as RFV-passed. I've removed the adjective senses as RFV-failed, expanding the first noun sense slightly and adding a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)