Talk:lazy ass

Adjective

Isn't this an adjective too? Two of the current cites look like adjectives to me. Siuenti (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, corrected, thanks for pointing that out. --Z 18:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RFD-passed

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.

---

I'd think this should be covered by sense 2 of ass. -- Liliana • 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but it's such a common collocation that someone should start some kind of wiki-based phrasebook for this kind of thing. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this might be idiomatic (ass only combines with a few adjectives, right?) lazyass is attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe lazyass is attestable, but I haven't seen it attested. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

COCA shows at least 100 adjectives that occur in its corpus with ass at least twice. Some of them my be the body-part use (pimply, fat, skinny), at least sometimes, but it looks like more than a few. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Keep" per coalmine. It's idiomatic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't keep it per coal mine until it is actually attested, so I take that as a conditional keep. If some ???lazyass would just get their *lazyass to do some citations, all the other ?lazyass spectators could see how the word is actually used when spelled solid. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I'm not a lazyass. In fact, I think I'm quite productive here but not necessarily on the RFD page. I voted keep to express my opinion on this particular RFD, as I think it's the right thing to do, it doesn't mean I volunteer to do all the hard work to keep it. Why is it that lazyass deletionists have it always the easy way and all they have to do is just add {{rfd}} and expect that others work their asses off to provide citations? It's clear that the term is quite common and can be spelled solid, even before anyone tries to supply the citations. Google books has a lot of hits. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it personally. You are among the last I would so accuse anyway. I was just struck by the likelihood that citations would be necessary to determine how lazyass might be used: quite possibly not as a substantive, very possibly not referring a body part, but much more likely attributively. As a dictionary we try to attest to meanings of words rather than words.

The existence of WT:COALMINE is often used as if the mere claim of existence of a spelling is enough or that a Google search is enough. I don't think so. It would be bad policy to not subject the spelled-solid to ordinary attestation, if only because attestation is supposed to apply to all definitions in all languages. The norm for ALL definition is supposed to be three citations. We have not come close to achieving this because of the effort required, but it is supposedly the goal. We have been copying directly material from out out-of-copyright sources and imitating copyrighted definitions for so long that the goal often seems to have been forgotten. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, just used sarcasm to make my point ;). I understand that everything needs to be attested, but why rfd a term, which is easily verifiable in the first place? Why people who rfd don't bother checking but make others check? Shouldn't you defend your rfd? A quick check in Google books suggests the solid term exists. I also think that "ass" is used to make a few idiomatic expressions where a limited number of adjectives can be used ("bum" being a less vulgar option). Re: The existence of WT:COALMINE is often used as if the mere claim of existence of a spelling is enough or that a Google search is enough. Even if you don't like the policy, it's the policy. We all have to abide by by policies, even if we don't like them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there are a very large number of adjectives that occur modifying the person sense of ass, a fact which is easily found by reading the above or checking COCA or BNC. I don't like much WT:COALMINE in principle, but it does convert debate to a question of attestation. I really don't see that a mere claim that something could be attested based on an undigested google search is close to sufficient. The problem is that when such claims have been tested, sometimes the claimed attestation does not actually exist, due to scannos, use of the word in other senses or PoSes or homonyms, etc.

I am not particularly deletionist, I am attestationist. Of course, my opponents on these matters are best termed "assertionists" or "unsubtantiatists" or "whimsicalists". DCDuring TALK 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Cites for the solid form can now be found here. Eight pages of hits on Google Books definitely don't count as attestation on their own, but they're usually a good indication that the term in question may be possible to attest, and that it should ideally be brought to RfV before RfD. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please bear with me. First, the cites under Noun show lazyass as a noun being use as subject and object, so that is settled. But, as I see it, the citations for lazyass attributively modifying nouns could easily be viewed as the noun lazyass being used attributively. I can find citations for lazyass as a true adjective, in predicate position, and two of it being used gradably, with very and too, but not for lazyass as comparable. A bit surprisingly, I could not find comparable, gradable, or predicate use of lazy ass, even in groups. If these findings hold up, then:

1. lazyass is the lemma for the (noncomparable) adjective (with definition more or less as now in lazy ass#Adjective,
2. lazyass is the alt form for the noun,
3. lazy ass, more or less as defined, is a noun
4. lazy ass is not a true adjective.

I suspect that something similar would turn out to be true for dumbass/dumb ass and whatever others may exist.

To avoid being accused of being a lazyass, I should insert citations for the gradable and predicate use of lazyass. DCDuring TALK 05:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I dug up some comparable and gradable use cites of lazy ass and added them to Citations:lazy ass. If you've found any that I missed, please add them. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Well cited indeed. Thus: Keep. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:COALMINE. As for DCDuring's "actually attested", "attested" does not mean "having citations entered into Wiktionary", as can be verified in the definition of "attested" provided at WT:ATTEST. In any case, the citations for noun use of "lazyass" are now both at lazyass and Citations:lazyass, so case closed even on DCDuring's terms, which I reject. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  A dictionary that operated under your interpretation of attestation would end up being very slapdash indeed. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring above "Maybe lazyass is attestable, but I haven't seen it attested." I looked. Funny how that works. It's a bit like saying there might be a wooden spoon in my kitchen but I don't know because I can't be arsed to go downstairs and look. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear about the human motivation as it bears on this matter. Here are some premiese:

1. We would like all of our definitions to be supported by citations, aspiring as we have claimed to have a monolingual dictionary that matches OED in that regard.
2. A person challenging an entry typically does not believe it to be valid and is not motivated to engage in searches expected to be in vain.
3. A person defending an entry believes it to be valid and is motivated to find citations, possibly to the point to accepting inadequate evidence.
4. Many people may participate in a discussion about an entry.

From these premises, it seems that the least total duplicative effort and the highest quality discussion would result from one person making it easy for all others to participate in the discussion by actually selecting and formatting citations that make the case for attestation of a given definition. How is it even possible to discuss "evidence" when the purported evidence consists of one or a few different people's impressions of whatever of the google search they may have actually inspected? Who should be the one to provide the citations? Someone who doesn't think the search is worth the effort? That seems so contrary to human nature that I am surprised it could be advocated seriously.

A definition that is not supported by either inclusion in other dictionaries or citations hardly deserves the benefit of the doubt. If no one can be found to search out the citations, that might well be an indication that the entry is not worth having, as it apparently fits in no one's idiolect. If a deleted definition is good, someone will probably add it again - sooner if it is important, later if it is not. DCDuring TALK 22:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A person challenging an entry who is not motivated to make basic searches to check to see if there's citations available should not be bothered to put forth the effort to nominate it for deletion. It's not like searching Google Books for a word is arduous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember this began as a simple RfD, with no one challenging the citability of the co-occurring terms. Then a bald assertion was made that lazyass existed, which meant that WT:COALMINE provided a basis for inclusion. There is no amount of impressionistic perusal of citations that can address that. The citations need to be inspected. If we rely on an "opponent" they might settle on three citations what were in fact SoP. We have no realistic choice but to rely on an advocate to provide the most favorable citations. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Kept. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–August 2016

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

lazy ass

Rfv-sense for adjective: lazy ass ‎(comparative more lazy ass, superlative most lazy ass): lazy

The quotations in the entry do not use the exact spelling "lazy ass"; they use "Lazyass" and "lazy-ass". And even if they did, would not this be just attributive use of the noun lazy ass? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Certainly, most usage is attributive. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it is attributive use of the noun. I'd say it's SOP: lazy plus sense 5 of etymology 2 of ass: "used after an adjective to indicate extremes or excessiveness" (examples: That was one big-ass fish! That's an expensive-ass car!). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be. It makes some sense semantically. But what sense does it make grammatically? Are lazy ass and big ass adjective phrases headed by the adjectives? Other vulgar nouns can be used the same way. Moreover, is the usage any different from the usage of dictionary in "Those are real big-dictionary words you're using." (~ 8 uses at Google Books). DCDuring TALK 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also a user might look up ass and find a noun or -ass and find a suffix. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the overlap between the sense of ass that I mentioned and the suffix -ass is problematic, as they're clearly the same thing. Grammatically, I'd say it's a suffix that intensifies the adjective it's suffixed to; from the morphological point of view it's no different from Italian -issimo. The difference to "big-dictionary words" is that dictionary in that phrase is to be taken literally: they're words that belong in a big dictionary. But in "expensive-ass car", there is no implication that the car has an expensive ass (not even a metaphorical one). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The fundamental difference is that I focus conservatively on the grammar, without much regard for the semantics, and you on the semantics, inventing grammar as required. This is one of the cases where the result is different. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• RFV passed. Citations of this spelling that demonstrate adjectivity are at Citations:lazy ass. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)