Talk:primary
2. originally: originally or at first Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.[edit]
According to Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.,
2. originally or at first. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why would you use a dictionary that doesn't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Is there any evidence that primary can be used as an intransitive verb? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I can find this, but (some might argue it's a noun rather than a verb, and) it seems to mean something more like sense 1 (used without an object) than sense 2 as it's currently worded. As an aside, the split and wording of the definitions 1-3 could probably be improved. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- The cite you've found seems OK. The first definition also seems suspect to me. It would be nice to find any support for that while looking for cites for the intransitive sense. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
cited. I am a bit more dubious of the use of the verb to mean to knock out in the primaries, rather than to challenge in the primaries. One of the cites for that seems unambiguous, but the other two do not. In addition, I added two cites to the citations page that seem to be using the word slightly differently. One refers to primarying to the primaries rather than incumbents, and one seems to refer to primarying the voters. Kiwima (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not cited. @Kiwima, the context is very important here. It is clear that all the cites under sense 2 (as well as the 2013 cite on the Citations page) are for sense 1, and the 2014 Jacobs cite even defines it for us! As for sense 3, I agree that it's dubious; none of the cites support it clearly, and it is easy to find cites about people primarying an incumbent unsuccessfully. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree the Jacobs, Boatright and Lessig citations in the entry are sense 1, not 2. The meaning of the Lieberman citation is not clear to me without looking at more of the text. I also don't think any of the citations support sense 3 as distinct from sense 1, and I think people worried about being primaried are worried about being subjected to a challenge in the primary, which they might well lose, but I don't think "to primary" definitively/exclusively means "to win over and knock out in a primary". (One can, and journalists do, swap in phrases like "worried about being challenged in the primary", "worried about a primary challenger" as synonyms.) - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- The distinction between sense 1 and sense 2 is between transitive and intransitive. For sense 1, the direct object is given. For sense 2, there is no direct object, although it is understood that one is challenging someone who is probably an incumbent. For sense 3, I believe the first one is likely to mean to win the primary, but the other two are likely to only mean challenge. Given the subtlety of all these distinctions, perhaps we should just merge all the definitions into one. Kiwima (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- The third definition (second transitive one) seems unsupportable as a distinct definition. We don't commonly have separate definitions for instances in which a verb has a successful result vs. has an unspecified result or differentiated by degree of likelihood of success. Usually adverbial modifiers convey such information. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I found a cite for the intransitive sense that doesn't use the -ing form. There are so many uses of the noun and of the verb in its transitive use that we will have to boil the ocean to find unambiguous support for the intransitive.
- I also found a single use with a definition like "(of a US state) To hold a primary". DCDuring (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kiwima, -sche: The problem is that the current definition at sense 2 is wrong for all the quotes but the Lieberman one, which is evident from the context. If fixed, it is simply the same as sense 1. You wouldn't say that "Did you eat?" and "I ate an apple" use different senses of eat just because one is intransitive and the other is transitive. As for the Lieberman quote, the context is a very different time with a different political system, so there may be a dated sense there that matches our current definition for sense #2. It's about the Democratic primary in the 1970 United States Senate election in Connecticut, in which candidates needed 20% of delegates in order to compete. Although there was no incumbent, the delegates had chosen a winner that the party then endorsed, and the other two candidates who seemingly broke 20% were worried that party chairman Bailey was going to threaten or wheedle delegates to pull them below 20% and thus prevent them from running in the primary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: As you seem to understand the politics of these uses, perhaps you could take a crack at cleaning up the entry. (Also, there are some additional cites on the citations page to take into consideration). I can try to dig up more citations if you need them. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kiwima: Well, I don't want to close it just yet, because of that Lieberman quote, which seems to support an intransitive sense back from the convention-before-primary era, but I don't know how to find more cites along those lines. All the other cites are for sense #1 (which just needs an added label), so I'm not sure which ones you want to keep in the entry. As for the Citations page, I don't understand the 1914 quote, the 1963 quote is a jocular one-off based on white primaries, and the 2013 quote is just sense #1 again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why we would suppress the intransitive definition by combining it with the transitive one. It has two cites that don't involve an -ing form. The ones that do use the -ing form seem to have the same intransitive meaning as the two that don't. DCDuring (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Compare my point about "eat" above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why we would suppress the intransitive definition by combining it with the transitive one. It has two cites that don't involve an -ing form. The ones that do use the -ing form seem to have the same intransitive meaning as the two that don't. DCDuring (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kiwima: Well, I don't want to close it just yet, because of that Lieberman quote, which seems to support an intransitive sense back from the convention-before-primary era, but I don't know how to find more cites along those lines. All the other cites are for sense #1 (which just needs an added label), so I'm not sure which ones you want to keep in the entry. As for the Citations page, I don't understand the 1914 quote, the 1963 quote is a jocular one-off based on white primaries, and the 2013 quote is just sense #1 again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: As you seem to understand the politics of these uses, perhaps you could take a crack at cleaning up the entry. (Also, there are some additional cites on the citations page to take into consideration). I can try to dig up more citations if you need them. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kiwima, -sche: The problem is that the current definition at sense 2 is wrong for all the quotes but the Lieberman one, which is evident from the context. If fixed, it is simply the same as sense 1. You wouldn't say that "Did you eat?" and "I ate an apple" use different senses of eat just because one is intransitive and the other is transitive. As for the Lieberman quote, the context is a very different time with a different political system, so there may be a dated sense there that matches our current definition for sense #2. It's about the Democratic primary in the 1970 United States Senate election in Connecticut, in which candidates needed 20% of delegates in order to compete. Although there was no incumbent, the delegates had chosen a winner that the party then endorsed, and the other two candidates who seemingly broke 20% were worried that party chairman Bailey was going to threaten or wheedle delegates to pull them below 20% and thus prevent them from running in the primary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- The third definition (second transitive one) seems unsupportable as a distinct definition. We don't commonly have separate definitions for instances in which a verb has a successful result vs. has an unspecified result or differentiated by degree of likelihood of success. Usually adverbial modifiers convey such information. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- The distinction between sense 1 and sense 2 is between transitive and intransitive. For sense 1, the direct object is given. For sense 2, there is no direct object, although it is understood that one is challenging someone who is probably an incumbent. For sense 3, I believe the first one is likely to mean to win the primary, but the other two are likely to only mean challenge. Given the subtlety of all these distinctions, perhaps we should just merge all the definitions into one. Kiwima (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree the Jacobs, Boatright and Lessig citations in the entry are sense 1, not 2. The meaning of the Lieberman citation is not clear to me without looking at more of the text. I also don't think any of the citations support sense 3 as distinct from sense 1, and I think people worried about being primaried are worried about being subjected to a challenge in the primary, which they might well lose, but I don't think "to primary" definitively/exclusively means "to win over and knock out in a primary". (One can, and journalists do, swap in phrases like "worried about being challenged in the primary", "worried about a primary challenger" as synonyms.) - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I see the point that some of the uses are intransitive and these need to be covered in some way. Whether this should be by modifying sense 1 a bit or by changing sense 2 to follow sense 1 but adapted for intransitivity, I'm not sure. - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are abundant cites for both transitive and intransitive use of this term. The grammatical distinction is clear and we - and virtually all reputable dictionaries - maintain the distinction lexically. Why are we presenting this as if the grammatical distinction doesn't matter? Users would expect to find separate definitions for the different grammatical situations. No single definition can be substitutable in both the transitive and intransitive use. DCDuring (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
RFV-resolved We now have two senses, both ambitransitive. Kiwima (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Meaning low-class, crude[edit]
I (AmE) have on many occasions heard "primary" used to refer to something base or crude, like a fart joke, something that would make a little kid laugh because it's gross. It's always related to bodily functions. For example, "Stop making fart jokes. Don't be so primary!" This is related to one or two of the current definitions, but none of them really addresses it. Unfortunately, I can't find a dictionary to back me up. I'm certainly not going to add OR to the entry, but am I alone in having heard this? --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 18:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)