Talk:unsinkable
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
An RFV of the noun sense, which I have just created from the dubious former ‘adjective’ sense, created by someone else (I’m not referring to the new adjective sense that I’ve just created that exists and I think might’ve been the inspiration for the dodgy former sense). I doubt it exists but maybe I’ll be proven wrong. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- judging from a cursory search, we can probably find enough quotations for unsinkable (n.) as "a ship that is, or is claimed to be, impossible to sink". The current noun sense does look dubious.
- I also wonder if the adjective sense "unflushable" should really be considered as a lexicographically separate sense from sense 1; imo it shouldn't be. As it is, I changed the "of ships" in sense 1 to "chiefly of ships", and labelled the "unflushable" sense as an extended use. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 00:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Something can sink to the bottom of a toilet and then not flush. Happened to me recently with a nail. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- lol yeah; in that case, I'm not sure if "unsinkable" should really be defined as "unflushable" in those quotes; see the 1981 quote in reference to a condom, the 2007 quote in which it is used together with "floating", and the newly added 2021 quote differentiating between "'unflushable' and 'unsinkable'" – looks like they are all referring to the fact that they are floating and wouldn't sink, not that they wouldn't flush; which makes it completely identifiable with sense 1, I think. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 23:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought of the nail example but it still feels like a distinct sense to me. You can 'flush' an item down the toilet but not 'sink' it and such an item would be 'flushable' not 'sinkable' - comparisons between 'flush' and 'sink' are only possible when looking at the derived negated forms 'unflushable' and 'unsinkable'. Perhaps it could be slightly better worded than it currently is though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- well, my point was exactly that none of the citations we have under sense 3 actually justifies the definition "unflushable". (What also complicates the matter is that except the 2021 cite, all citations we have can be interpreted as humorous figurative uses ["that cannot be rid of"] that do not involve the technicalities of "flush" vs. "sink" at all.) 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’ve conceded defeat on that as the reference to things ‘bobbing’ and ‘floating’ in my cites made it untenable, so I’ve deleted the adjective sense I created and moved the quotes to the other sense. The actual challenged noun sense of ‘a piece of faeces that won’t flush/sink’ has RFV-failed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- well, my point was exactly that none of the citations we have under sense 3 actually justifies the definition "unflushable". (What also complicates the matter is that except the 2021 cite, all citations we have can be interpreted as humorous figurative uses ["that cannot be rid of"] that do not involve the technicalities of "flush" vs. "sink" at all.) 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought of the nail example but it still feels like a distinct sense to me. You can 'flush' an item down the toilet but not 'sink' it and such an item would be 'flushable' not 'sinkable' - comparisons between 'flush' and 'sink' are only possible when looking at the derived negated forms 'unflushable' and 'unsinkable'. Perhaps it could be slightly better worded than it currently is though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- lol yeah; in that case, I'm not sure if "unsinkable" should really be defined as "unflushable" in those quotes; see the 1981 quote in reference to a condom, the 2007 quote in which it is used together with "floating", and the newly added 2021 quote differentiating between "'unflushable' and 'unsinkable'" – looks like they are all referring to the fact that they are floating and wouldn't sink, not that they wouldn't flush; which makes it completely identifiable with sense 1, I think. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 23:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Something can sink to the bottom of a toilet and then not flush. Happened to me recently with a nail. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)