Talk:take umbrage

The vulgar, 21st century derived form "take umbrance" is regarded as incorrect, though gaining currency.

What is this doing on the talk page when I added it directly to the article? 71.127.131.84 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–August 2023
 Verb  take umbrage Either of the two senses fits either of the two quotations, but particularly the second quotation suggests that the speaker hypothetically feels offended by someone's words, so the speaker is saying here is that they would take offence at this description. Generally, people who consider someone else's words or deeds an affront will experience displeasure, and such displeasure may rise to the level of anger, but to make sense 2 separate from sense 1 requires uses of take umbrage where someone becomes angry and resentful, while their anger and resentment is not occasioned by their feeling offended. --Lambiam 05:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) To take offense.
 * 2) To become angry and resentful. (Can we verify this sense?)
 * 1) To become angry and resentful. (Can we verify this sense?)
 * Given that taking offence is presently defined as "to feel (and usually to show) resentment at another's actions or words" I don't see how these senses could possibly be distinguished. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Looking at the OED's definition of umbrage, it is just glossed as "Displeasure, annoyance, offence, resentment". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, delete/merge the second def into the first def. The two definitions have been there since the entry's creation back in 2005; early in Wiktionary's history, people used to provide multiple ways of expressing the (same) definition on different lines for whatever reason, maybe thinking it would make it easier for a language learner to understand if they weren't familiar with the expression "take offense" but understood "become angry". Enough entries with this problem have come up at RFV, RFC, etc that it might be useful to try generating a list of, say, English lemma entries created before 2008 which had multiple definitions during that timeframe and still have multiple definitions today, to look through. - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't detect a distinction either.
 * As amusing as the Wodehouse quotation is, it requires prior knowledge of take umbrage for its interpretation by most speakers/readers. As such, it is not the best usage example. As one of only two citations, it could be misleading for a language learner, suggesting that take and umbrage can be subjected to many grammatical trnasformations. More useful would be some quotations showing one or two of the quantifying adjectives and determiners that can intervene between take and umbrage. OTOH, in the 21st century usage of the passivization seems to be on the increase. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've simply deleted the second sense, thereby bringing the second quotation under the scope of the now single sense. In general, the use of humoristic writings as examples should be discouraged as being potentially confusing, but I'm leaving finding better quotations for now to other editors. --Lambiam 21:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the second cite, if no one objects, because it isn't independent of the first anyway (same author, same book). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's cute. Maybe it belongs on the Citations or Talk page. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed, no sense dragging this out. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)