Talk:bowled out

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Ruakh in topic bowled out
Jump to navigation Jump to search

portion RFV-failed[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.


bowled out[edit]

Listed as a noun. Even an adjective (which we don't have) would seem dubious, the only sense of this which is in widespread use would be {{past of|bowl out}} - which we also don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this attestably prove out as an adjective? It seems like just a past/past part. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would not include this word as an adjective as its meaning is not distinct from its verb counterpart. e.g. New Zealand have been bowled out for 167 (runs). (I know, should've been the Aussies :P). The first definition is dubious however. One could say: Taylor is out <pause> bowled for 49, just shy of a half-century. (ie. he's been dismissed and the method of dismissal is having had the ball hit his stumps), but not Taylor is bowled out for 49. - which makes no sense to me. So delete adjective sense(s).JamesjiaoTC 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't seem to be an adjective, just use of the passive voice. Still, a month won't do any harm, it's not patent nonsense or an attack page (which we do get here at RFV). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed, adjective section removed. —RuakhTALK 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply