Talk:reserve

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 1 year ago by The Editor's Apprentice in topic Natural resource sense appears to have an economic restriction
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Kept. See archived discussion of November 2008. 07:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for verification: "to serve again"[edit]

The sense "To serve again (e.g. a tennis ball)" at the Verb section. See details at Wiktionary:Requests for verification#reserve. --Eveningmist 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

RFV discussion[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.


The sense "To serve again (e.g. a tennis ball)" at the Verb section. Other word may be utilized; "to have a second serve," etc. --Eveningmist 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

If we keep this sense then it should be under a separate pronunciation (and etymology?). I would always write re-serve, but the modern trend to omit even essential hyphens seems unstoppable. Dbfirs 13:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed, sense removed. It seems plausible that someone might write it this way, but I couldn't find any evidence that anyone ever does. —RuakhTALK 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Natural resource sense appears to have an economic restriction[edit]

Looking at topic specific resources online (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) it seems that reserve is specifically used to refer to a deposit of a natural resource known and not being exploited despite the fact that it could be economically feasibly to exploit it. That last part about economic feasibility is not present in the current definition. Should the current sense be modified or a sub-sense added? I would guess most lay people aren't making the economic qualification when they use the term. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply