Talk:bridge

en:noun Card game

Sense #10 (card game) should be joined with the second Noun heading (card game). Probably the etymology should be split too.

tunnel/bridge?

What is this doing here:

If a man made structure is longer than it is wide then it is probably a tunnel. If a man made structure is wider than it is long then it is probably a bridge.

Also, to me, it doesn't even make sense. 81.68.255.36 19:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It’s nonsense. Removed. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what they had in mind was a situation such as plonking a horizontal, flat 'rectangular' structure across a valley — preferably near the bottom of the valley. Travelling under that structure along the length of the valley it may seem to be a tunnel; travelling over that structure across the valley it may seem to be a bridge.

I don't think that it's entirely "nonsense", but I agree that it's not clearly worded at all, and moreover is so often incorrect that it's not helpful to retain.

—DIV (1.145.110.167 12:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC))

RFV=

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Are the etymologies 1 and 3 really different, or should we just move the contents of 3 into 1? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an RFV issue, unless you have doubts about whether the senses in Etymology 3 are in actual use. Tea Room, maybe? or Etymology Scriptorium?

As to substance: From a synchronic view, merging makes perfect sense- the two are semantically two sides of the same coin. Inconveniently, Etymologies are inherently diachronic- it boils down to the actual history of the two.

It's an interesting philosophical question: did the verb descend directly from the Old English verb, separately from the noun's descent from the OE noun, or did both form a complex of complementary forms that descended to what we have today? The connection between the two would have been as obvious then as it is now. I do tend to otiose capillary bifurcation, at times, though... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

When I treat etymologies, that is precisely what I look for: whether a pos is a direct descendant of an earlier word, or whether it is derived, either in Modern/Middle English, from the other. Century, which is a good source (where others may coalesce for space-saving) shows individual etymologies for the noun and the verb. Leasnam (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I do, however, feel it should be moved closer to the related word (Etyl_3 closer to Etyl_1). Leasnam (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It also seems likely to me that the wrestling verb sense is in fact a direct conversion of the wrestling noun sense. The actual facts of diachronic derivation within language communities seem messier than what we would want to present. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you there. Breaking up into a main Verb (all encompassing) and Noun (all encompassing) is usually the extent to which I go. If further breakdown is needed, it can be written into the Etymology to explain the various sense derivations. Leasnam (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

en:verb

Classifications

Why is there no indication of transitive or intransitive status of verbs? —DIV (1.145.110.167 12:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC))

bridge together

Is bridge together accepted English usage? Examples: "I hope this letter bridges us together." "The railway will bridge the towns together." or "The railway will bridge together the towns." It strikes me as odd/off.

But (unsurprisingly) I can find instances of it online, such as at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="bridge+together+the" . (Sorry, unfortunately I cannot get that URL to show correctly in WT!)

—DIV (1.145.110.167 12:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC))