Talk:all-comers
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by -sche in topic RFV discussion: September–December 2012
I very much doubt that this should be hyphenated. It just seems like a plain old phrase to me. — Hippietrail 08:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
This is all + comers. It the hyphenated form is used it is when in modifying a noun. DCDuring TALK 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- There might be some fused-head use, eg, "We went to the all-comers (match)", which I don't think warrants an entry either. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is idiomatic usage here. "He fought all-commers" does not mean that he fought everyone who came to the boxing match, but rather he fought everyone who challenged him. "They employed all-comers" does not mean that everyone who visited the factory was employed, but rather that everyone who applied for a job was employed. SpinningSpark 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- In some contexts all comers might refer to "all guests", "all participants", "all would-be renters", "all who accept a challenge", "all who challenge", "all pilgrims", "all petitioners", "all supplicants", etc. I each case the meaning would seem to be "all who come (as X)", where (as X) depends on context.
- In any event, I am asking for citations, with any meaning, of this spelling not used attributively. At best this is an alternative spelling. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The hyphen still seems inappropriate in your examples, SpinningSpark. Equinox ◑ 13:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am a bit blind to the correct use of hyphens and would be just as happy with all comers, for which we don't currently have an entry. However, the hyphenated, non-attributive form does seem to be citable [1][2][3][4], although certainly in the minority. SpinningSpark 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are citations of the term. I think the wording must be SoP wording to include all the cites. "Event" certainly doesn't fit three of the four examples. This seems like an error to me, but there are terms that are hyphenated by convention, not by rule. Macmillan and Cambridge Advnced Learners have this spelling. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, why is this here? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are citations of the term. I think the wording must be SoP wording to include all the cites. "Event" certainly doesn't fit three of the four examples. This seems like an error to me, but there are terms that are hyphenated by convention, not by rule. Macmillan and Cambridge Advnced Learners have this spelling. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am a bit blind to the correct use of hyphens and would be just as happy with all comers, for which we don't currently have an entry. However, the hyphenated, non-attributive form does seem to be citable [1][2][3][4], although certainly in the minority. SpinningSpark 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is idiomatic usage here. "He fought all-commers" does not mean that he fought everyone who came to the boxing match, but rather he fought everyone who challenged him. "They employed all-comers" does not mean that everyone who visited the factory was employed, but rather that everyone who applied for a job was employed. SpinningSpark 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- So... kept. Move to RFD if it is SOP. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)