Talk:wholly

That quote from 2011 December 19, Kerry Brown, “Kim Jong-il obituary”, The Guardian, specifically the phrase "wholly unprecedented worship", seems a poor example of using the word wholly, as it uses this word merely as an intensifier. —Keith Cascio (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It nevertheless is used in accordance with the definition it is under, no? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say: yes, but with a serious qualification. When we account for shades of meaning: no, not optimally so. When used as an intensifier, wholly "makes no contribution to the propositional meaning of a clause but serves to enhance and give additional emotional context to the word it modifies". In that example sentence, if taken literally, wholly means that we can cite precedent for no component of the worship of Kim Il-sung, which seems unlikely. Therefore, I propose the more accurate interpretation "taken overall, the worship is very unprecedented", i.e. we emotionally intensify the unprecedentedness of the worship. This is a poor example of the actual meaning of the word wholly. I prefer we strive to provide a good example, not merely any example. Please comment. —Keith Cascio (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If people use it in a way where it conveys almost no meaning, we should reflect that. We don't only reflect the usage which is the most interesting to us. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)