Talk:dogman
Etymology[edit]
Not a very useful etymology... dog + man. Well thanks! Does anyone know a more precise origin of the word?
- Hi! This site with hundreds of thousands of entries was made by amateurs who just love words. I'm sorry that we don't live up to your standards. If you know some information that is missing, then please fill it in. Thanks for visiting, and kisses. Equinox ◑ 01:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
"A man who likes dogs or prefers dogs as pets, often as opposed to liking cats." This would be a dog man, not a single-word dogman (which one would not expect to be stressed the same way in speech). The given citation has dog-man hyphenated. Compare Talk:breast man, Talk:oldman. Equinox ◑ 03:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (I added this def., btw), as the meaning is not at all clear. As for spelling, hyphenated or as two words is more common, but, I added into the solid entry as that was already there. I think the stress is on the first syllable in all 4 current senses of dogman. Can't see how it would be possible to stress the second syllable. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. What we need is evidence that the term is (or was) in actual use with that specific meaning. --Lambiam 16:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I will add that it is perhaps an advantage of some dictionaries (especially paper ones, but even some electronic ones) over us that "dogman" and "dog man" would be sorted together on the same page(s), whereas we necessarily put them on different pages so someone looking at one will not necessarily think to look at the other... but nonetheless, unless this is commonly attested in this spelling, the sense should be moved (and if it's not attested in this spelling at least three times, then COALMINE doesn't apply and the sense should arguably be deleted as SOP). - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. What we need is evidence that the term is (or was) in actual use with that specific meaning. --Lambiam 16:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, right. So, I've moved the offending def to it's own entry under the heading "dog man" as this seemed to be the most common. There are sufficient citations in the entry to meet CFI. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have re-added an entry to dogman because I managed to find sufficient cites, but I think it should remain an alternative form. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- The citation that refers to "dogmen, sportsmen and travelers" might be a different senses (trainer of dogs for blood sports): Google won't show me much of the page, but it is discussing "skunk rabies" as something that a "dogman" ought to know about. Equinox ◑ 09:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fine. I have removed that quote. We don't really need it, I just liked it because of its age. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- The citation that refers to "dogmen, sportsmen and travelers" might be a different senses (trainer of dogs for blood sports): Google won't show me much of the page, but it is discussing "skunk rabies" as something that a "dogman" ought to know about. Equinox ◑ 09:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
the Browning citation: "filch the dogman's meat"[edit]
Can we be sure she means a person selling dogmeat, and not a person selling meat (in general) for the purpose of feeding dogs? Equinox ◑ 21:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)