Talk:unimmortalize

RFV discussion: April 2022
Er, "to make unimmortal"? Equinox ◑ 04:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Cited. Not sure about the definition; I know what it means in my head but it's hard to express it. This, that and the other (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * mortalize. Theknightwho (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more than that - it implies they were already imbued with immortal status, and then it was taken away by the unimmortalizer. This, that and the other (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If is “to make mortal”, and  is “to make something no longer immortal” then the only way they could be different is if there is some third state in which something is neither mortal nor immortal. The only situation I can think of is where the noun is simply incompatible with it (e.g. oncology). I am extremely doubtful that we’ll be able to attest  (N/A → mortal) or  (immortal → N/A) being used that way. Assuming that we can’t, the logical conclusion is that you can only mortalize something that is already immortal. Theknightwho (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a concept of well-defined state transitions is a useful way to frame these words. Anyway, if you want to do it that way, we are all either "default-mortal" (humans) or "default-immortal" (gods). The OED's citations for mortalize include a few "default-immortals" being mortalized (Adam, Faunus, Hebe) - their immortality was not a layer being stripped away (they were not "unimmortalized"), it was their initial state and mortality was being applied to them for the first time (they were "mortalized"). Most of the other cites are instances of the mortality of "default-mortals" being brought into focus in a humbling manner. This, that and the other (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean - so you view as a reversal of, whereas  does not require that context.
 * The logic is sound, but it relies on the assumption that one is not mortalized or immortalized at creation, and in any event seems to be at odds with the 1839 cite. I don't believe Lucifer was ever mortal (though I don't know the poem, so there may well be relevant context I'm missing). Theknightwho (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging by the poem's very beginning, Lucifer does indeed seem to be Satan. So you are right as far as Bailey is concerned. This, that and the other (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * So, would it work to define it like "to make not or no longer immortal; to mortalize"? I concede that any time we have "fancy" or clauses ("the or a X", "not or no longer Y", etc) it seems to confuse some people, so perhaps there's a better way of doing it (but the current def is also confusing)... - -sche (discuss) 15:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried a wordier version of this in the entry (complete with a split infiintive! How horrifying). What do you think? Also SB inexplicably reverted the three cites I found, so I put them back. This, that and the other (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)