Talk:tuse

I'm just wondering what the source for this is? I've never heard of it, nor as any dictionary I can lay my hands on. Interesting for something to be proscribed and virtually inexistant at the same time. Having said that, I should try a few Google searches before I make any more comments. Mglovesfun 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually strong delete now, google.fr returns 66 hits for "tu tuses" all of which seem to be misspellings of tu t'uses. "Que tu tuses" (as in Spanish, most subjunctives follow que) gets erm, zero hits. Mglovesfun 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My French isn't very good, but if this is "first and third-person present subjunctive", why would it take tu: (second person)? I found for instance on the Web (referring to Hitler): "qu'il tuse des millions de gens pour en sauver des milliards", but it is a rare aberration and probably an error. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all, it's VERY strongly marked (low slang) Quebec form where a "theoretical" (you would not normally pronounce final "e") vowel hiatus is eliminated. Here are a few examples (none of which are citeable, something that would be eminently hard to find, but still): CRISSSSS. Faut que je la TUSE! (talking about a spider), attend que je le tuse ton chien a la con (being told "my dog could have done better), (rapeller moi quil faut que je le tuse). The TLFQ Database actually manages to dig quite a few citations. Want me to collect those? Circeus 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not wrong Equinox, I worded that quite badly, so here goes. On Google.fr with "include French results only" and in quotation marks:
 * Que je tuse - 1
 * Que tu tuses - 0
 * Qu'il tuse - 2
 * Qu'elle tuse - 0
 * Qu'on tuse - 1
 * Que nous tusions - 0
 * Que vous tusiez - 0
 * Qu'ils tusent - 0
 * Qu'elles tusent - 0
 * So that's 4 Mglovesfun 23:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I just read that. So why can't you do that with any verb? Makes me think of the old -in' problem that any verb can have a form ending in -in'. Mglovesfun 23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that you can't, it's that few very common verbs (i.e. verbs basic that a strongly proscribed process would affect them), end in -uer or -ouer. You'll find example for tuer: and jouer:, possibly louer: (here's one), but not verbs like rouer: or éberluer:. It's a context thing. It's the same reason a verb like "engueuler" does not, in fact, have a subjunctive imperfect (I dare you to find literary quotes!): a wroter that uses that verbal tense is at best highly unlikely to use the word, just as someone who writes a text in which joue -> jouse is unlikely to use the verb "allouer" (they'd use "permettre"). Circeus 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, I'll have a go at that. Foutre doesn't have a past historic or an imperfect subjunctive in any (paper) dictionary that I know, but you can find it a lot on the web (je foutis and je foutus). Oh by the way, this. Mglovesfun 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite willing to revise the entries (gotta make one for tusent:, too), but I'm not going to back down from believing they warrant listing. Circeus 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we wait for someone else to contribute then? Mglovesfun 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not valid French. Perhaps some Quebec slang, but what is the difference with bad spelling ? In the quote "rapeller moi quil faut que je le tuse", do you want to create rapeller (rappeler) too ? I think we should delete tuse and tuses. We are not a normative dictionary, but it is too rare and close to bad spelling in my opinion. Koxinga 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As an ex-Marseillais Parisian, I'm against, and  without a relevant dialect specification. JackPotte 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These are irrelevant to the point in that they don't affect pronunciation. As mentioned above, I can dig up several written quotes with dates ranging from at least 1930s-70s. I won't bother if the thing are gonna get deleted anyway. I wouldn't object to losing louse:, though, for which I can hardly find actual quotes (although there seem to be a slangy homonymous verb borrowed from English lose: in use in Europe, whice complicates things). Circeus 06:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mglovesfun, and for the record: The consensus in the past was that we do have entries ending in "in'" if attested. If someone wants I can dig up the conversation (I think). Because this is off-topic in this conversation, and to make sure I see your request (I'm not always at a computer that can bring up the huge RFD page), please ask me at my talkpage rather than here if you want me to dig it up. —msh210 ℠  15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Added quotes for all three forms of tuer (not sure why there are much more available in the TLFQ database for the plural than the singulars), and adjusted the tags: it's much more nonstandard, even for slang, than proscribed (which maps to "disputed"). Circeus 06:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept as cited and tagged. --Jackofclubs 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)