Talk:new

This is a much used word, with many subtle nuances of use. It NEEDS lots of examples to illustrate te correct usage.

Widsith trimmed it down to less than in my Compact Oxford dictionary. It was just too brief in that form. Let's not get too keen on sort definitions, but have hundreds of translations !--Richardb 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I think you should put the adverb sense back though; it is used without the hyphen in older works. I think the reason I took some of the example sentences out is that to my eyes it makes the page look a bit messy. Perhaps if we could get a decent Citations sub-page for this word, the examples on the main page could afford to be cut back a bit. Widsith

While I would like to see a great citations page, I think the subtle distinctions between some of these definitions makes it important to have at least a couple of example sentences with each definition. Normally, I dislike that approach, but for such a basic English word with so many different uses, I think I have to go against the approach I would normally advocate. --EncycloPetey 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Combine defs?

• transferred from User_talk:EncycloPetey, but relevant here.

Tricky word. Isn't ‘young’ the same as sense 1, recently made or created? Also sense 11 is the same as sense 9. Widsith 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No to both. The definition of "young" refers to age in a sense that isn't quite carried by def 1. No one would talk about a "newborn album" or a "young scratch". It's a subtle difference, yes, but it's one that's carried in the original Latin. As for 9 & 11, there's a very big difference that may not be worded as well as it should -- I can see why you think they're the same. Look at the sample sentences to see that these are not the same. An idea can be new in the sense of unfamiliar, but a person would be new in the sense of inexperienced. An idea cannot be inexperienced. --EncycloPetey 16:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions 7 and 10 seem fairly pointless and not significantly different from the others. Paul Willocx 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fresh Translations

No offense, but I've been searching everywhere for the translation from English to Hebrew of the word "new" and have been unable to find it. I think that to include the Hebrew translations in both the Hebrew and Roman alphabets would be very beneficial. If this belongs elsewhere, please advise.

---

New York

I think New York was named after the Duke of York, rather than York, it was only called 'New' because it was previously known as New Amsterdam.

The Duke of York was named after York (obviously), so there isn't really a difference. They weren't going to give a major city the same name as another major city, which is why it was known as "New" Amsterdam then "New" York. Mclay1 16:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another definition?

I can't see a definition that means something along the lines of "thing that has not yet been created" (sorry, I can't think of a good way of phrasing it) - for example "Make a new one" or "Open link in new tab" type ideas. Have I missed a definition, or is this really missing? --86.7.73.76 03:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely that's sense 1: "recently made, or created". Okay, when I tell you to open a new tab, the tab doesn't yet exist, but as soon as it does exist it's recently created; and until it does exist there's no actual referent. Equinox ◑ 14:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Common misuse: ephemeral word usage advice.

The word "new" is often sloppily or intentionally misused when a revision date would be more appropriate or informative. "The New Oxford English Dictionary" is an obvious example, in that all superseded editions of it cannot be considered new. But because the word 'new' is written, despite being ephemeral, and predictably at writing, it becomes irreparably false and perpetually misleading as soon as soon as a newer version is published. Despite the resale disadvantage for the old versions of any product, they should have been titled with a date or at least year, since they seem to have published a newer version every few years, which could have more rationally been named "The 2001 Oxford English Dictionary", etc, or for more practical sorting purposes, "The Oxford English Dictionary, 2001", '05, '06, '10, etc.
Our popular culture and advertising history is rife with this misuse, and perhaps this 'new' version of my critique of the definition of ephemeral words in general will be criticized as normative rather than reflective, but it would improve communication (despite advertisers' aversions to integrity) if all users of ephemeral words in recordings (rather than only in ephemeral media) would keep the future in mind, and in hope that their works will survive them.
Wikidity (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes a revision date is inappropriate, e.g. in place names (New York). What you mention is also an issue with other words, e.g. the "modern" in "Modern English". Equinox ◑ 14:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a "misuse" in advertising either. They stop calling the product new when it ceases to be new. It's true at the time they use it. My new green hat may fade to a dirty grey over time, but it's still fine to call it both new and green today. Equinox ◑ 14:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)