Talk:double entente

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: July 2019–February 2020
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: July 2019–February 2020[edit]

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 anon created this page. I only find this as Double Entente (cf. Triple Alliance) or to be a misspelling of double entendre Leasnam (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is not English. It may be part of a French phrase. Wikipedia (the English one) states that the phrase double entendre is “a corruption of the authentic French expression à double entente ("double meaning")”. That three-word expression is proper French, and means “with a double meaning”; it is listed as an adverbial phrase in this online dictionary and also has an entry in the French Wikipedia, where it is classified as an adjectival phrase.  --Lambiam 19:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I could find no evidence for the supplied defintion, but there is evidence for a synonym or near-synonym of double entendre. I added a number of cites to the citations page that use the phrase without italics or scare quotes, which could be taken as evidence that the author considered it English. Particularly convincing, perhaps, are the quotes which use the plural ("double ententes") which would not be correct french. Kiwima (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Citations have now been added. But none of them relate to the definition given, rather to "double entendre". SemperBlotto (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Two that relate to the first sense: [1] (tongue-in-cheek); [2].  --Lambiam 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. Thanks to @Lambiam for the two citations, but we never found a third, and those two look like nonces. Kiwima (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply