Talk:bowling club

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

bowling club

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it to me. Can anybody think of a specialized use? I can imagine a bowling club doing something other than bowling, such as going to dinner or fund-raising, but if it didn't bowl at all, I don't think it would be a bowling club (although I suppose it could keep the phrase in its name, which wouldn't really be the same thing). The only possible window I can see for it referring to a subset of possible applications would be that there are different types of bowling; but I would say that the phrase could apply to any of these. Probably even a club that makes bowls as a social activity. So the term doesn't really seem limited to me. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a sum of parts. In Australian English a bowling club does not refer to any type of establishment other than one for lawn bowls as per the definition. The term does not refer to a place or club where one can play ten-pin bowling or make ceramic bowls. Further, to be a member you do not have to play bowls, and bowling clubs serve a social function for many people, rather like a worker's club or RSL, where people go for dinner, to play poker machines, take part in trivia quizzes and raffles for charity, see entertainment, etc. I originally added the definition so that I could make a link to it from the colloquial term "bowlo".Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that a club consisting of people who engage in ten-pin bowling couldn't or wouldn't be considered a "bowling club"? According to the Wikipedia article, this is called "bowling" in Australian English, so wouldn't a club that does it be a bowling club? If so, then it's not idiomatic because of referring to only a limited subset of activities that the words alone might apply to. The phrase also doesn't become idiomatic merely because the members of a bowling club could engage in other activities, any more than a "pickleball club" is idiomatic merely because its members go out to dinner or hold a raffle. Now, if a club that has no connection to bowling at all can be called a "bowling club", then you have idiomaticity. So, if you form a dinner club out of people who never bowl and have no intention of bowling, would it be correct to refer to it as a "bowling club"? If not, then I don't think it's idiomatic, because it can refer to anything that the words do standing together, and doesn't apply to clubs that don't have anything to do with bowling. P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of speculation in the arguments here. Okay, maybe a ten-pin bowling alley could possibly be called a bowling club by someone, hypothetically, or a club of ceramicists who make bowls could hypothetically name themselves the Upper Bongo Bowling Club, etc., but the question surely is - do they? In other words, what evidence is there to support the claim that bowling club does not specifically refer to clubs for lawn bowls? Therefore it is idiomatic since bowling club does not mean "any club where people bowl (for any sense of the verb bowl)" - that would be a definition that is unsupported by evidence. In Australian English the term is restricted as per the definition. It probably needs an Australian English context added too if it is not used that way in other varieties of English.210.193.45.163 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry - was not logged in, not trying to hide my ID.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, I guess, Seems to have some regional variation and some idiom. I'm also a native Australian English speaker and I'd personally only call it a "bowls club" and not a bowling club—though this seems to be a well established synonym. At first glance, I thought of a "bowling club" as something akin to a chess club for 10-pin bowlers (which would probably not be idiomatic). But I don't think you could ever call place where you do 10-pin bowling a "bowling club"— it's a bowling alley. Official names for lawn bowls clubs seem split between bowls and bowling: e.g. Thornbury Bowls Club, City of Melbourne Bowls Club, Brunswick Bowling Club, Hawthorn Bowling Club, Leichhardt Bowling & Recreation Club Sydney, Waverton North Sydney Lawn Bowls Club and Wedding.... No "bowling clubs" that I could find are for 10-pin/alley bowling though. Pengo (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Question: is regional variation in a phrase important to whether it's idiomatic? The fact that some people might say "bowls club" instead of "bowling club" doesn't seem very important. Is "red brown" idiomatic because people in New England prefer "reddish brown"? Also, is the distinction between a "club" as an organization and a "club" as a physical building relevant to this discussion? If not, then it doesn't matter whether a bowling alley could be called a bowling club. I had rather assumed that the phrase bowling club was being used in the sense of a group of people who bowl, rather than a building designed for ten-pin bowling. I'm sure you're right that the phrase generally isn't used of buildings; not because it couldn't be (at least if some sort of membership were involved), but because the phrase "bowling alley" is idiomatic and pretty much sweeps the field. But is there any inherent limitation in the phrase to render it idiomatic? i.e. can it be shown definitely to refer only to certain clubs and to exclude others that might technically be involved in bowling? The fact that another phrase is universally employed for one subset doesn't really prevent anyone from using another to describe it. Or can the phrase be applied to a club outside the context of bowling altogether? i.e. is it still a bowling club if its members never go bowling, but make jams and jellies instead? P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, regional variation is important as to whether a term is idiomatic or not. If a term has regional restriction, then that means that people from outside the region do not use the term in that way, and thus are liable to misinterpret it. Of course, these statements refer to "a term" - i.e. something that is a lexical item - which is what we are trying to determine for "bowling club" here. For "red brown" and "reddish brown" obviously it doesn't matter if there is regional variation as the meaning of the two collocations is the same, and they are only collocations not compound nouns. So they are not a good comparison.210.193.45.163 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry - was not logged in, not trying to hide my ID.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The only excuse I can think of for us having a definition of "(activity) club" would be the example case of golf club where there are two clear definitions. Which is NOT the case here. Delete SoP. -- ALGRIF talk 13:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My main line of thinking was more than if "Bowls club" was used more in one region and "Bowling club" in another then it might be evidence of idiom, and worth mentioning the regional split on the entries. However, I haven't found evidence of that, and no one else has come forward with such evidence, so I withdraw my "keep" vote. —01:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not convinced that the words ever mean anything other than a club formed for the purpose of bowling. I think that holds whether it refers to a group of people, or the place where they gather (whether or not bowling is done there). The fact that another phrase is almost universally employed for one possible sense ("bowling alley" for a building with lanes for ten-pin bowling) doesn't really limit the use of "bowling club". While a bowling club could also have pool tables or host beauty pageants, go to dinners or raise money for charity, I don't think it would be a bowling club if it didn't bowl at all. So I don't see any signs of idiomaticity. P Aculeius (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I have always associated bowling clubs with bowling greens and lawn bowls, not bowling alleys. Donnanz (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

But are you saying that it can't be used of a facility for ten-pin bowling, or that you just don't personally associate it with bowling alleys? The question here isn't whether it usually refers to a subset of bowling or bowlers, but whether it necessarily excludes others. And wouldn't a group of people who associate for the purpose of bowling be a "bowling club" even if they bowl at an alley? P Aculeius (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to query this statement, "The question here isn't whether it usually refers to a subset of bowling or bowlers, but whether it necessarily excludes others." I think this is a misinterpretation of the CFI. According to the CFI a term is idiomatic if "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components" - which is clearly the case. If fact all this discussion of what people "thought" bowling club referred to is telling, because if you were in Australia or were familiar with Australian English, you'd know what it meant. To put it another way, if you were in Aust and you wanted to go ten-pin bowling and you looked in the Yellow Pages for bowling clubs, packed your best bowling shoes and favourite bowling ball and set off to the club you'd gotten an address for, you'd be sorely disappointed, and you'd be outside it realising that bowling club is idiomatic (in AusE at least), and that the meaning is not "easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". There is nothing in the CFI that states a terms must "necessarily exclude" any or all other potential interpretations.210.193.45.163 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry - was not logged in, not trying to hide my ID.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make my point clearer. We have a term, which can refer to A, B, or C, all of which can reasonably be inferred from its parts. In one region, it usually refers to A or B, a different term being used for C; but C is not necessarily excluded when the term is used. Does that make the term idiomatic? In your example, a person looking for C would be disappointed simply because all of the examples of the term that a person encountered in the phone book referred to A or B; therefore it must be idiomatic. I'm not convinced that this is enough to make "bowling club" idiomatic. Does that mean that "banana shop" would be idiomatic in New Hampshire if none of the banana shops there sold plantains? P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Sonofcawdrey.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: per above. Purplebackpack89 20:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)