Talk:yadda

yadda
Entry only says "See yada yada yada". There is no definition and no support as an independent word in the entry. It is not even splled the same as the target entry. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear from b.g.c that both "yadda yadda yadda" and "yada yada yada" are amply attested. It doesn't need support as an independent word, if it did then all our "alternative spellings" entries would be bad.  It's common sense, that if someone is wondering what "yadda yadda yadda" means, there's a good chance they'll look up just "yadda".  As for whether yadda redirects to "yada yada yada" or "yadda yadda yadda", that's academic.  Probably the only reason the entry wasn't just an auto-redirect, is the good possibility "yadda" could mean something in another language. Language Lover 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But the entry for yadda is labelled "Interjection". It is not an interjection, and it is not a word. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I went and rewrote it to be self-contained. If it's not an interjection, is it a particle?  In any event, it's most definitely a word. Language Lover 05:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which definition of word: applies here then? None of our current definitions apply to this item.  It doesn't work as a particle, either, because particles are typically appended to an existing word, phrase, or clause, rather than strung together to assemble a "word". And let me make it clear that I am not being facetious in pursuing this case, but am taking it quite seriously.  I believe that it will make a nice reference point for other such situations, so good discussion is to be valued.  I know where I stood at the beginning of this discussion, but do not know yet where I will stand at its conclusion. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, the one labelled 'linguistics' applies perfectly well. Maybe it's a US thing and you're UK or Australia or something? Language Lover 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm US. (see blow) --EncycloPetey 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't quite fit that sense, because it doesn't "have a particular meaning"; it's part of a larger phrase that has meaning, but on its own it seems that it doesn't. (That's kind of an iffy criterion; does a: have a particular meaning in “Veo a ella”? Words don't always have meanings, per se, and sometimes just have grammatical roles. But either way, yadda: doesn't seem to have either one.) —Ruakh TALK 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As Ruakh has pointed out, either we have a problem calling this a word, or our current definition of word: is inadequate. --EncycloPetey 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When we first wrote this back in early 2006, there was a question about punctuation as well as about how many yadas. It was decided then to put the main entry at yada yada yada and to add redirects from some of the common permutations such as yada yada. —Stephen 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if three is any more correct. Two yaddas gets a good number of hits. One yadda? Send to RFV. DAVilla 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep somehow. I agree that this needs to be done better, but it looks like a word, and even a native English speaker would assume it was a word if (s)he didn't know better. Incidentally, however we decide to format this non-word-that-warrants-inclusion-anyway, we might want to use the same approach for misspellings. —Ruakh TALK 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to spoil this as a test case, but yaddas are not always found in sequence. I've added some cites illustrating this, based on which I believe we should keep the entry.  Also added another POS, but that might be dispensed with; it seems that, much like certain expletives, this can fill pretty much any grammatical role.  Maybe we need a ===Placeholder=== POS. -- Visviva 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Kept. --Jackofclubs 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)