Talk:without a hitch

RFV discussion: October 2015–February 2016
The definition given was not was I was expecting: completely unplanned and unexpected. Can it really mean this? I thought it meant something like "smoothly". ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the user who created this was banned indefinitely. Not sure why. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual usage uses, for which the usage example is: The banquet went off without a hitch. ("the banquet went smoothly.")
 * IMO, the correct definition is SoP, though a good candidate for collocation space. DCDuring TALK 09:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I created the most commonly used definition. Pur ple back pack 89  13:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They user who created this had a knack for finding idiomatic phrases that we were missing, but they made up their own definitions- this entry is typical of their body of work. They were warned about dubious content, they persisted, they got blocked. Sad, but unavoidable. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Completely unplanned and unexpected" is the challenged sense, remember. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. How is this sense used? I can't think of how. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My instinct is it's just a user error, created by a user who didn't know what it meant. But since I have no evidence of this, I say wait the full 30 days. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) doesn't list this, but it has 'without a hitch' in an example sentence under 'hitch'. RFD sounds not unreasonable, though I don't know if I'd support it or oppose it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV failed: no citations given. I have left the commonly used sense that Purplebackpack89 added; it can be taken to RFD if anyone believes it is not idiomatic. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August–November 2017
Passed RFV, BTW - NISOP IMHO. --WF on Holiday (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NISOP??
 * Glossary:
 * NISOP – Non-idiomatic sum of parts: a term (such as "brown leaf") that can be understood from its constituent parts and is not an idiom, thus probably not suitable for inclusion in a dictionary.
 * Alright then. As hitch has 6 possible definitions and the correct one in this case is #4 I say keep. This meaning of hitch is considerably less common outside of the use with the word "without". It seems odd or at least uncommon to say "We've had some hitches while setting up this gig". I think hitches are experienced or ran into and probably most common are "without a". I suspect this use of hitch may actually originate from the knot meaning, which would possibly make it idiomatic. If you have some rope with hitches in it, you can't use that rope before you've cleared all the hitches. If you don't, you'll run into trouble every time you hit a hitch. So, if you grab some rope and while using it find out there are no hitches in it, it's smooth sailing. Sailing, knots.. That might actually be the origin. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Specific meaning of "hitch" makes this a set phrase, which can be contrasted against hitchless. bd2412 T 01:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a hitch in your line of argumentation: that sense of hitch is also used in other phrases- what's so set about this one? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. See hitch senses 4 or 5. (Are they redundant defs?)
 * Most MWEs use a particular sense of the component words. So what? Have wqe taken leave of our senses. There are arguments to be made, but this one is silly. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to use hitch to the same effect. no hitches, not any hitches, and, yes, hitchless.
 * There are plenty of other instances of attestation of the word in the sense in question that should serve to refute factless assertions. DCDuring (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of "hitchless" to mean "without a hitch" in the sense that we define it is merely a back-formation. bd2412 T 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And the evidence for that is? DCDuring (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, this. bd2412 T 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That just says on expression is more common that another. What does that have to do with back-formation as we define it?
 * To wit, "The process by which a new word is formed by removing a morpheme (real or perceived) of an older word, such as the verb burgle, formed by removing -ar (perceived as a suffix forming an agent noun) from burglar." DCDuring (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The earliest use I can find for the modern form of "without a hitch" is from February 1, 1862, The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Vol. 13-14, p. 114: "It is, indeed, a novelty for a Secretary to the Admiralty to be able to say that a magnificent frigate like the Phaeton was commissioned on the 2nd of November, and was ready on the 7th to cross the Atlantic with a crew of between 500 and 600 men—that the Orlando, a still larger ship, sailed fully manned for the expected scene of war just one week after she was commissioned, and that an entire fleet was got ready and despatched with almost equal rapidity—without a hitch or a hindrance, and without the necessity of drawing a man from the Reserve which had so eagerly pressed forward for service". Does an earlier use of "hitchless" with this meaning exist? bd2412 T 03:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The earliest use I can find for the modern form of "without a hitch" is from February 1, 1862, The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Vol. 13-14, p. 114: "It is, indeed, a novelty for a Secretary to the Admiralty to be able to say that a magnificent frigate like the Phaeton was commissioned on the 2nd of November, and was ready on the 7th to cross the Atlantic with a crew of between 500 and 600 men—that the Orlando, a still larger ship, sailed fully manned for the expected scene of war just one week after she was commissioned, and that an entire fleet was got ready and despatched with almost equal rapidity—without a hitch or a hindrance, and without the necessity of drawing a man from the Reserve which had so eagerly pressed forward for service". Does an earlier use of "hitchless" with this meaning exist? bd2412 T 03:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards Keep. Sure it is covered by the noun sense of hitch; but it is a set phrase in that without a hitch is a very common prepositional phrase meaning without any problems occurring, rather than "of a rope, without an hitches tied in it", so in that sense it is an idiomatic use. I think in such cases frequency is important - on Trove "without a hitch" has over 68,000 hits and "without any hitches" has less than 3500, and in that sense it is a set phrase in the language. Frequency is always important in language and hence in lexicography.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)