Talk:role reversal

RFD discussion: November–December 2023

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

role reversal

Sounds pretty SOP to me. PUC – 13:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. delete Kiwima (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, keep. I am rather puzzled why PUC added a translation and then decided to RFD it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? PUC – 19:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I considered SoP when creating the entry. I don't think the definitions at reversal cover this, which is more like a swapping of roles. DonnanZ (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably keep: it's strongly idiomatic (we don't talk about "part reversal", even though a role is a part and you can "take someone's part"), and the definition indicates that it usually means two people trading places, not a single person reversing their role (e.g. hero becoming villain). Equinox ◑ 20:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not buy this idiomaticity argument. One can also say, in a reversal of the roles^[1][2][3] or, the roles were reversed,^[4][5][6] so if there is some idiomaticity, it is not in the specific collocation role reversal. In most of these other combinations you cannot substitute part for role either, but how is this an argument for idiomaticity? It applies equally in many contexts in which the term role is used, contexts that do not involve some role swapping, e.g., the role of the acid in our stomach, the role of this gadget  or the role of this question.  --Lambiam 16:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"How is this an argument for idiomaticity"? I thought that was what idiomaticity meant: the tendency to use one form when others would also make sense. Oh well, I don't care too much about what happens to this particular entry. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The term idiomatic has several distinguishable meanings, as does the term idiom to which it relates. You are referring to our sense 1: “A manner of speaking, a mode of expression peculiar to a language, language family, or group of people.” However, as used in our NISOP non-inclusion criterion, it refers to sense 3: “An established phrasal expression whose meaning may not be deducible from the literal meanings of its component words.”  --Lambiam 15:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Equinox's first line up above. A naive reader wouldn't know what this means without already knowing what it means. —Soap— 07:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Lean keep per Equinox. I'm not convinced by Lambiam's reasoning above, e.g. "French kiss" is obviously idiomatic even though it can be rearranged in various contexts (e.g. "kissed him French style"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning delete per Lambiam; a role reversal is a reversal ... of roles. OTOH, a number of other dictionaries (Cambridge, Collins, and seemingly the OED) have this, so meh. - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

But it's not a reversal of one single role, even though it could be. Not hero to villain, predator to prey (unless the other entity also changes their role correspondingly). Equinox ◑ 19:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I added &lit in an attempt to cover that eventuality (hero to villain etc.) It can be reverted if inappropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per fried egg test. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Kept per all the criteria tests that we have Denazz (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)