Talk:bad dog

Scolding

This term is used to scold humans. Therefore it must be an idiom. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also heard "you've been a very naughty boy" or something similar said to females. I don't reckon that makes it idiomatic. So: cites? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2020–January 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

bad dog

I think this is a transparent collocation, and a pretty stupid entry. DCDuring thinks that it's idiomatic, which proves he can't tell jokes apart from idioms. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an interjection with "bad" that is typically only used with "dog", "cat", "boy", and "girl". People don't say for instance, "bad human!" as an interjection. I'd say it should be kept. Fish900 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I say "bad human!" all the time. Gender-neutral, right?? --Vitoscots (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Being able to say "bad [X]" is strictly a matter of your relationship to [X]- it has nothing to do with anything lexical. Human beings aren't really in a position to address other human beings as "human" in such a manner, but if they were, then "bad human!" would be quite natural. One can certainly find instances of "bad human", but they're far outnumbered by false positives, so it's probably not worth the trouble.. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. You are just telling the dog that it was bad. -Mike (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Good dog!" and "naughty dog!" are also extremely common, and I can imagine others like "silly dog!". Equinox ◑ 18:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Like “silly goose!”?  --Lambiam 05:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Silly goose! definitely should have an entry because it is referring to a person. Fish900 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It definitely should not. "You ugly bastard" and "greedy child!" also refer to people, but they are obvious from the individual words. No multi-word entry needed. Equinox ◑ 16:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"silly goose" refers to a person, not an actual goose, therefore an entry is appropriate. As far as I know, people aren't referred to as geese except in this expression.172.58.171.159 16:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see how that would make the combination non-SOP, as goose has a meaning that it is derogatorily used for a human. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad entry! Delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per DCDuring's "This term is used to scold humans. Therefore it must be an idiom", unless the term is in fact not used to scold humans. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Dan Polansky The challenged entry does not mention humans. DCDuring wrote that only on the talk page. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Equinox True enough. The idea is that a phrase that is so readily repurposed to refer to humans must have some setness/idiomaticity to it. The idea may be debatable, but it is there. Admittedly, the entry might be improved by adding a humorous sense to it; we do not do this in Czech (we do not say "zlý pejsek" to humans), and therefore, it is language behavior worth documenting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have no desire to check, but I would suspect that BDSM literature might have some interesting permutations. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, see dog senses 5, 6, 7. PUC – 10:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the proposed deletion? In the sense of the interjection as defined in the challenged entry bad dog, the sense of the noun is obviously that of dog sense 1.

Sorry, it was my answer to the suggestion above that if this is used for a person it makes it non-SOP. Yes, SOP per sense 1. PUC – 20:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Of the many ways in which exasperated English speakers might shout at their naughty canine (“disobedient dog!”, “perverse pooch!”, “contrary cur!”, “misbehaving mutt!”, “fiendish flea bag!”), “bad dog!” is the utterance of choice. This is sense 6 of bad: not behaving or misbehaving; mischievous or disobedient. So this appears to be SOP. The only claim to idiomaticity might be that this interjectory use is reserved to pets; at least, I think parents would not generally shout “bad daughter!” to their disobedient child.  --Lambiam 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've personally heard "bad boy!" and "bad girl!" directed at very young children. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Bad kitty!" Delete! PseudoSkull (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete, thank you for the lols. …also dog wheelchair. whelp. – Jberkel 18:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad dog wheelchair!  --Lambiam 13:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Serious question here: I'm not sure if this exists only in my dialect or in standard English as well: A "bad dog" can be a disobedient dog but isn't a "bad dog" a dangerous/vicious dog as well? There really could be two senses to this term: (1) a vicious dog; (2) an instruction given to a dog. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have actually seen signs before for houses that saying "warning! bad dog." supposed to be a warning to scare away burglars. So, yes a "bad dog" can be a dangerous dog as opposed to one that is disobedient. So maybe this should be kept and the dangerous dog sense added. 2600:1700:E660:9D60:ECCF:B6AE:362F:57C 14:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, IP editor! I'll go work on it now. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, @Metaknowledge, Fish900, Vitoscots, Chuck Entz, Dan Polansky, Equinox, Fay Freak, SGconlaw, Mnemosientje, PUC, Lambiam, Jberkel, TheDaveRoss, PseudoSkull, Moverton:. I modified the entry. Would you please take a look again to see if it will affect your decision in any way? Thanks. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn’t. All is SOP, and useless. Fay Freak (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete, seriously bad entry - before and after tweaking - nothing of value to anyone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your English is great but I think a learner of English at the CEFR A1 level might find some value in the entry. What do you think? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you know what bad + dog means (by the way, you can literally substitute dog with any possible animal you can think of), then you'll understand it. If you don't, you should probably demand a refund from whichever introductory course to the English language you went to. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we refer to dangerous lions, alligators, sharks, bears, and spiders as "bad lions", "bad sharks", "bad bears", "bad alligators", and "bad spiders" or do we just refer to dangerous or vicious dogs as "bad dogs"? If the latter, then bad dog should have an entry. 8.48.254.68 20:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

For "people" keeping them as pets, yes we do hear them say that. We even say that about inanimate objects; there's even a production company called Bad Robot for crying out loud. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)