Talk:take exception to

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: To take offense to or at. The main meaning is to object to. Taking offense is a sometime accompaniment, not an inherent part. Because it is an implication of "take exception" that one might "take offense", supporting the RfVed sense requires some cases where one takes offense at something without objecting. If someone could suggest a scenario, I'd be happy to try to hunt down a citation. I realize this may be getting a bit picky, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand how this kind of not-uncommon implication works and how it should effect our definitions.

There's also a question whether this (not an entry elsewhere) is SoP with respect to take exception (which more other dictionaries have). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited, I think. As you say, it's hard to find clear examples; so, I've taken the liberty of also listing some secondary sources (using &lt;ref&gt;), which hopefully help to buttress the case. And it's worth nothing that the creators of take exception and take exception to both considered offense to be key.
 * I definitely think this entry could be merged (redirectfully) into take exception. Incidentally, one source, which I therefore did not include, seems to suggest that for this sense one should rather say "take exception at".
 * —Ruakh TALK 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RFV passed, since no one has objected. —Ruakh TALK 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)