Talk:pajock

RFV discussion: September–November 2012

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

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

---

pajock

Rfv-sense: A proud or ostentatious person.

There are two quotations, but I do not see that they attest this sense. If the Hamlet quotation is accepted for this sense, would the "use in a well-known work, or" item of WT:ATTEST apply? If it does apply, should the sense at least be marked as archaic or even obsolete?

Helpers:

• “pajock”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.
• google books:pajock, google books:"a pajock", google books:"pajocks"

--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare meets the "well-known work" exemption if anyone does! Why do you object to the given citations? Equinox ◑ 20:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the Shakespeare quotation convey the meaning of "a proud or ostentatious person" to you? On another note, if I use "pajock" to mean "conceited person", will I be readily understood? I would still see it tagged "obsolete" unless proven otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly agree with "obsolete" (and probably "nonce word", because I think only Shakey used it), but the meaning seems accurate, doesn't it? It's the idea of showing off, metaphorically showing one's pretty peacock feathers; cf. peacocking. Equinox ◑ 20:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit that it makes metaphorical sense per the other meaning of the word, but not so much by the sentential context. To test for the semantic information provided by the sentential context, I replace the attested word with "X" in the sentence, to lose all morphological and etymological cues. On the metaphorical note, someone should probably add a person sense to peacock, per several online dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dan that not even one meaning, let alone two can be inferred from one citation, which is I why I object to the inclusion of any term (or sense) used but once, not matter how many commentaries there might be on the possible meaning of the term in that use. Not all the commentators agree, BTW. But as this is Shakepeare perhaps we can find some slavish imitators. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The citations make it clear that it is used pejoratively, of a person. The rest seems -- unproven. Century leaves it as "disputed". DCDuring TALK 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've passed the term, but with a stripped-down definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)