Talk:whoop

whomp
I noticed that etymology 2 (referring to whoop being a corruption of whip) doesn't seem to exist in any other dictionary I've seen. Check the word whoop in several online dictionaries and you'll see that the definition of hitting extremely hard is completely missing.

It is possible that whoop is instead a corruption of whomp, a completely different word! Have a look at whomp and you'll see the reference to whip and even whup.

Corrupting "whip" into "whoop" is a large vowel sound change. Corrupting "whomp" into "whoop" is a much smaller change.

I believe we need to remove the whole section of whoop being a corruption of whip from this word. --Caswick 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion (1) — failed
Prison senses. —Ruakh TALK 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for verification
Rfv-sense. A sound made by one inmate to warn other inmates that a guard is approaching the area. Seems redundant to sense 1. Tagged by someone else, check the page's history. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Archived previously without having been resolved. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Had I tagged it myself, I think I might have gone for . Anyway, it hasn't been archived to its talk page, so where is it please? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the dated archive for RfV August 2007. No content except for initial posting. The facts are mostly illustrative of the value of the work MG is doing to try to get items on these pages properly closed. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) It was in the black hole that was (and still is) Requests for verification archive/August 2007. (We used to archive RFV on a monthly basis sometimes, like we still usually do with BP and GP and TR. As you can imagine, it worked even less well with RFV than it does with those.) I've resolved it now, and archived the previous discussion to the talk-page. (Usually I like to wait a week between RFV-failing and archiving, but the two-year-old-archive-page format isn't conducive to such an approach.) —Ruakh TALK 19:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few of these, two of Ruakh's immediately following the instant case. Are we better off to have new RfV/RfDs working off the "oldest tagged" lists or to check the facts about whether the items have duly "clocked out" and should be deleted (unless better judgment says otherwise)? I'd favor mining the archives for the "clock-outs", but would happily defer to other thoughts and, especially, to others who wanted to do some of the work in whatever way suited them. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Police sirens
Ive just come across Closed Captions that read so. JMGN (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)