Language desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 30

Phrasing in the case of restaurants that have ceased to exist

Hi, I opened a Request for Comment about the question "Which phrasing is preferable in the lead of an article about a restaurant that has ceased to exist?". Please feel free to leave a vote or a comment at Talk:Peacock_Alley_(restaurant)#Request_for_comment_on_phrasing_of_article_lead. Marrakech (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it. There is only one editor insisting on a phrasing that has not met with approval by several others. The editor is bordering on being a troll. Stop feeding him. Akld guy (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned, as long as they stay away from Language Ref Desk from now on! AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own preference is very clear. But my dislike of the alternative is mild compared with my surprise at the contrast between the degrees of energy that seem to have gone into (A) this dispute and (B) the article as a whole. We read that this was (or defunctly is) a restaurant that served (or defunctly serves) French food. Nothing more to say about the food? It sounds unremarkable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dating"

Dating has two meanings. The primary meaning is to estimate the age of something. The secondary meaning is to be involved in a courtship with someone. Can I use the primary meaning on persons?

I date the rock to be about 5,000,000,000 years old.
I date the man to be about 30 years old.
Sophie told Laura that she was dating men.
Sophie told Laura that she was dating men's ages.
Sophie told Laura that she was dating the rock.
Sophie told Laura that she was dating the rock's age.

That's my problem. When it comes to the primary definition, is one dating the age or the entity? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're trying to invent confusion where there is none. But if all else fails, check the history of the word "date".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can hardly be taken seriously as a question. Statements 2,4 and 6 would never be used by native speakers of English (which is not the same as native English speakers, by the way). The other sentences are fine. The meaning of "dating" is always clear from the context. Akld guy (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6 is marginally acceptable, in a redundant sort of way, in Trump's America. Sad. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5 could also be "Sophie told Laura that she was dating The Rock". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could see 6 naturally as Sophie's clarification if Laura decided to misunderstand it that way, but such a misunderstanding hardly seems natural except in jest. 1, 3, and 5 are perfectly fine; 2 and 4 only really make sense as (rather poor) jokes. Double sharp (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- "to date" in the transitive "establish the age of" meaning basically always takes an inanimate direct object (human remains yes, a living human no) while "to date" in the sense "participate in courtship occasions with" normally takes a human direct object, so there could only be real risk of confusion in the case of highly-contrived (probably science-fictional) examples. "To establish the age of" may be the chronologically earlier meaning, but it's somewhat technical in current usage (used by carbon-14 labs, manuscript philologists etc.), so I'm not too sure why it should be considered the "primary" meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you date a rock to be 5,000,000,000 years old, either the rock is alien or the Earth is older than currently thought (4,540,000,000 years). --Theurgist (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Or, more likely, you just misplaced a decimal point in your calculation. Wymspen (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You've simply proven that it's a meteorite. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've seen the two senses conflated is when archaeologists are deliberately being playful or humorous: "I'm dating a two hundred year old man; he's not too lively, but I get a bone anytime I want it." This probably explains why so many archaeologists drink to excess. :) Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'primary' [ie earlier] meaning is not "estimate the age of" but rather "estimate the date of origin/creation/birth of". You don't date an antique to be 300 years old; either you date it to the 1720s or you estimate it to be 300 years old. jnestorius^(talk) 12:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]