Talk:timesing

The word multiplication could be put in stead of timesing in the byspels below.
 * Calculation should be made as waste on the dimension paper and not mentally, and timesing should be done consistently." &mdash; Willis, et al, Willis's Elements of Quantity Surveying, 11th ed'', p33, 2011, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK <<< Many byspels at the link.
 * 1) Each UNIT can have a timesing factor of 1 to 999. The field must be used and 1 is entered by default. &mdash; Site Layout <<< Many byspels at the link.
 * 2) Create a timesing calculation using 'direct entry'. &mdash; Checklist <<< Many byspels at the link.
 * 3) conditional timesing of cells blog
 * 4) adding, subtracting, dividing, and timesing games website
 * 5) "Division, squaring and timesing?' blog --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For those who doubt there is a plural:


 * 1) timesings are 2.5-2-2-6 is that good or what &mdash; overclocking, 2004
 * 2) the gigs timesings are 2,2,2,6 and the 512 is 2,3,2,5 or something like that &mdash; another forum, 2006
 * 3) Hot keys provide quick access to common functions such as timesings and sidecasts &mdash; Masterbill Elite checklist of features
 * 4) If I say to you multiply 1 x 1 six times, then indeed there are six timesings in a row, &mdash; Dailymail Health boards, 2011

timesing
Noun: "multiplication". I don't see it as attestably distinct from the verb form. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not seeing any distinctness here. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's almost impossible to find any evidence of a plural timesings, which IMO would be the strongest case to keep a noun entry. Probably delete. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *SIGN OF THE TIMESINGS AND DIVIDINGS &mdash; worksheet (doc format) from Logan Schools, Logan, Utah. Looks like the word is being taught.
 * *timesings are 2.5-2-2-6 is that good or what &mdash; overclocking
 * *the gigs timesings are 2,2,2,6 and the 512 is 2,3,2,5 or something like that &mdash; another forum
 * *Hot keys provide quick access to common functions such as timesings and sidecasts &mdash; Masterbill Elite checklist of features
 * *If I say to you multiply 1 x 1 six times, then indeed there are six timesings in a row, &mdash; Dailymail Health boards --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect this classification as a noun arises from confusion about what a is, as  seems pretty clearly to be the typical English gerund formed of a verb + .  But then this also shows confusion about the part of speech of the word : in the phrase, 6 times 7, some people clearly parse  as a verb, but the original meaning is that it is literally 7, six times -- i.e., as the plural of .  (NB: ... I just saw Talk:times and really wish I'd been active then in order to participate.  Ah, well...)
 * I note that all of the citations for appear to be from the same publication -- is that allowed?  I thought we needed three citations from different publications to pass CFI muster.
 * *You need to look at that again. The links go to six different places. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For that matter, I just went through the citations for times, and was quite surprised to see this gaining currency as a verb. Is this specific to any particular region?  Is it limited to younger speakers, non-native speakers, or others with less educational experience in English? In terms of sociolect and register, I must admit that usages such as  and  sound to my ear as not just "informal" as currently marked, but flat-out grammatically wrong, and thus very low-class and undereducated -- quite similar to  or, for instance.  Of the three citations currently given, all appear to be quotations of students speaking, in which case the illustrated uses of  and  could be construed as childish mistakes.
 * *Really? Does this sounds like it was written by a child or an uneducated person:
 * If the table A has a yes in its cell I want the two respective cells in tables B and C to be times together and added to any other respective cells that are in the same row. &mdash; conditional timesing of cells --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Checking the results of, I find that the majority of hits on the first page are either apparent quotes of children's speech, or are from construction-related documents, which leads me to think this might be a domain-specific term for builders.
 * Perhaps some such explanatory note(s) would be in order? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a childish term, but not new. I think I learned times at school some years before I knew the word multiply &mdash; so what else would we have called it? (And grammatically, for a child, I think times works like plus or minus, as something you slot between two numbers, more than the plural of time to indicate repetition.) Equinox ◑ 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree in terms of slotting between numbers, and for kids, POS is largely irrelevant.  Though I do recall having multiplication explained to me using the phrasing X, Y times to clarify how Y times X works out, whereas I've never heard phrasing such as X, Y plus.
 * That said, in your experience, do you recall adults using explicitly as a verb?  I.e., conjugating to, , , etc.?  And what of the apparently common use by builders?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think adults would only use it when talking to children. The builders' sense is new to me. It seems to be a shorthand when you want to order a particular component n times, and can be abbreviated by a slash ( / ). This reminds me of my father (who worked in technical drawing) using the same slash for "off", where e.g. "2 off" means you want two of a component. See off, Preposition, sense 7. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs are uglily formatted but seem legit, keep I say it.Lucifer 10:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the citations? They don't seem legit: they have no source citation, just the quote and a short reference that someone might be able to research to figure out where it came from. Also, they seem to be using the word as a verb. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess that I should check that little box to "watch this page" but, truly, didn't even think this would be controversial ... I came across this by accident. Since I made the entry, I'll defend it. ...
 * First, from the wiktionary for -ing:
 * 3. Used to form nouns of the action or the procedure of a verb; usually identical with meaning 1. in the English language or expressed with -tion instead
 * The forging of the sword took hours. - where forging denotes a planned procedure of work rather than a specific physical action''


 * 1) I think we can agree that timetion is not the way to form a noun from times. In English, we would add -ing ... thus timesing is the normal and natural way to make a noun from the verb times.
 * 2) Timesing is seemingly well established in the building industry as a noun. That ALONE justifies it as an entry. It is not a slang term.
 * 3) If one can swap the word multiplication (a noun) for timesing, then is it not working the same as multiplication?
 * Calculation should be made as waste on the dimension paper and not mentally, and timesing should be done consistently." &mdash; Willis, et al, Willis's Elements of Quantity Surveying, 11th ed'', p33, 2011, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK <<< Many byspels at the link.
 * Calculation should be made as waste on the dimension paper and not mentally, and multiplication should be done consistently.
 * Each UNIT can have a timesing factor of 1 to 999. The field must be used and 1 is entered by default. &mdash; Site Layout
 * Each UNIT can have a multiplication factor of 1 to 999. The field must be used and 1 is entered by default.
 * Create a timesing calculation using 'direct entry'. &mdash; Checklist
 * Create a multiplication calculation using 'direct entry'.

So, we know that the word exists; it is being used as a noun; it has a plural (see my answer upthread) ... So why shouldn't it be there? --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That -ing can be used to form nouns from verbs does not mean that every use of it does form a noun. In any event, are all -ing forms of verbs also nouns? If so, then in principle we would need to have at least one noun sense for each verb sense (each subject to attestation). This is much the same situation as arises for attributive use of nouns, which would require at least one adjective sense for each sense of the noun. Rather than waste time on multiple, largely redundant definitions we simply assume that users are aware of the rudiments of English grammar which includes the fact that (virtually ?) any noun can be used attributively and that -ing forms can be used as adjectives and as nouns. The very few (2 ?) valid citations provided in the entry do not make it indisputable that the word is be used as a noun. Clearly the sense is not distinct from the sense of the verb. We don't even have valid citations of it being used in the plural.
 * To avoid wasting time, please remove citations that are not durably attested or otherwise do not meet our standards for attestation and find valid citations of timesings:. I personally don't find even those compelling, but others do and I agree that pluralization is a not unreasonable test for nounhood. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Searching Google Books, News, Scholar, and Groups for 'timesings -timesing -"time sings" -"times kings" -"times ings" -"time signs" -"timesigns"' yields nothing but scannos. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It uses times as an infinitive, so timesing is a gerund of times. A few Google Books are: here, here, here, and here. —Stephen (Talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that not all -ing words are nouns. However, here we have a competing word that is clearly a noun … multiplication. So if one can substitute multiplication for timesing then is not timesing being used as a noun? If you answer yes, then argument is over, it is a noun. It really is that simple.
 * Further, I think you'll agree that timesing is used much less multiplication. And the times that you will find the plural form multiplications used is far and few between. In fact, I did a run thru of the Corpus of Contemporary American English and got a mere 26 hits from 1990 … 21 from academia (no surprise there) … NO hits since 1999. What does that prove? Nothing really except that hinging the form of little used noun on whether you can find its plural in printed publications will not be very useful. After all, if I can only find 26 hits for a plural from of well-used noun like multiplication, that doesn't betoken well for a little-used noun like timesing. However, the use of plural by a school system and that software makers are putting the plural form on their checklists is enuff for me. Software makers seldom print handbooks anymore so you won't find their writings on your google book search not that their handbooks would be there anyway.
 * If that is going to be your criteria so that you can blatantly ignore the less formal but demonstrable uses, then you're going to be busy with that delete key because now you're applying the criteria for the entry of a word to the entry of a form. I suggest that you start with the adjective form of hench. I don't think that you'll find it your google book search.
 * I must say that I'm really disappointed by this type of illogical prescriptive pedantry on Wiktionary. The more the use of timesing grows, more vitriolic the foot stomping becomes from the pedants. But it won't put the genie back in the bottle. Timesing is a noun, it is being used as a noun, and the use of it as a noun is growing. Whether you choose to admit that or not won't stop it. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC).
 * As far as I know, gerunds are nouns... verbal nouns to be precise... —CodeCat 19:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted. Normally I would've said to discuss it in the BP, but for this one, I haven't seen any kind of convincing evidence that this is a noun, and the discussion seems to reflect that. -- Liliana • 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)