Talk:hidden
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Deletion discussion[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
[edit]
Tagged but not listed: adjective "that has been hidden". Presumably this is just the past participle. I always feel a bit uneasy about these, as they're sort of redundant to the verb form but as adjectives. Citations like "very hidden" wouldn't clear the matter up anyway, as adverbs can qualify both adjectives and adverbs. So guys, have fun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's often hard to distinguish a past participle of a verb from the adjective that describes the state or quality that results from that verb's action. Indeed, this distinction didn't even exist in Proto-Indo-European: a participle was an adjective that described this state of being; the idea of using it to refer to a former action came only later. I would personally like it if English participles could be treated this way too, i.e. as a special part of speech "Participle" that may be both verbal and adjectival. That way we won't have unnecessary definitions, and just the definition 'past participle of X' would automatically include any implicit adjectival senses. —CodeCat 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are two other adjective senses not being challenged. The uncited definition given is exactly the definition wording appropriate for a past participle. The "definition" of the English -ing-form in our presentation is present participle of. Why would we need more? DCDuring TALK 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we need this, but it might be valid, and if it's valid we keep it whether needed or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that the examples given are covered by the previous definitions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we need this, but it might be valid, and if it's valid we keep it whether needed or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Although a bit off topic, I support CodeCat's proposal of a POS Participle. This would make even more sense for languages which inflect participles just like adjectives. As long as we don't have that, I don't see a reason to keep the definition in question. Longtrend (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are two other adjective senses not being challenged. The uncited definition given is exactly the definition wording appropriate for a past participle. The "definition" of the English -ing-form in our presentation is present participle of. Why would we need more? DCDuring TALK 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. But the definition should be changed: something may be hidden without having been hidden (cf. the example provided: hidden talents). And French inflects past participles like adjectives, but the sense is dfferent: participles refer to the verb action (therefore, they are verb forms), while adjectives refer to a state, a property, not to the verb at all, despite the fact they share the same spelling. This word clearly shows that it's the same for English. Lmaltier (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notice the other two senses? I think they include all the most common adjectival meanings of hidden. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 20:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)