Talk:splatterdash

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: December 2021
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: December 2021[edit]

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


Rfv-sense: uproar Notusbutthem (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This term has an odd assortment of senses that turn up in isolated uses. I can find two cites where it appears to mean "poetry with sloppy expression":
  • 1960, Kenneth George Budd, The Last Victorian: R. D. Blackmore and His Novels[1], page 115:
    He complained bitterly about his "highly finished rhythm" (although he did not, in fact, think much of himself as a poet) being broken up into prose lines (“splatterdash”) []
    (the full text of the quote is here)
  • 1835, The Edinburgh Review[2], volume 187, page 225:
    Then there is the question of perfection of form and con- centration of expression, about which Mr. Kipling is woefully careless in poems which contain really fine and original thoughts. [] There are powerful passages here and there in the poem [sc. 'Tomlinson'], but as a whole it is what we call splatterdash writing [] it is too lengthy and too carelessly written to hold its ground as poetry []
This one is this closest we get to "uproar":
  • 1971, William Eldon Baringer, Lincoln's Rise to Power[3], page 244:
    All the doubtful state forces swelled the anti-Seward splatterdash.
There are also a couple of cites talking about a splatterdash approach to teaching, involving "This is to avoid what may be termed “splatterdash” teaching—the teaching of everything with special reference to no one particular thing, the teaching of what is understood and not understood." [4], also [5].
Here it is being used as an adverb: [6].
Generally the sense is one of a disorderly, haphazard approach. I'm not sure whether we can - or should - distil it more finely. This, that and the other (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I fixed sense 2 in the entry. The situation remains that the RFV'd sense only has one cite (Baringer above). This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply