Talk:clear

To clear a workload

i.e. to get it done, to get it out of the way. Our definitions come very close but I'm not sure that any of them quite fits. Equinox ◑ 21:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–September 2019

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

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.

---

clear

Rfv-sense: To fell all trees of a forest.

The wording would seem to define an intransitive use. Also the first (transitive) definition has a citation that is of clearing a forest. Wouldn't this be the same use of clear if what was being removed was rocks, structures, shrubbery, tall weeds, people, mines, etc.? DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I expect that intransitive "clear", meaning "clear (implied object, potentially including trees)" probably exists in a somewhat peripheral way, though I'm not sure it needs a separate listing. However, my guess (I could be wrong) is that this particular definition was supposed to be a transitive sense specifically for object "trees", which isn't covered by any of the other senses, or possibly for object "forest", or possibly for some not-properly-thought-out combination of the two. There definitely seems to be a missing sense where the object is the thing removed, rather than the thing that something is removed from. This missing sense could apply to both object "forest" and object "trees". At least one of the quotations for def #1 ("the Art of the statuary only clears away the superfluous Matter") mixes up the "remove" and "remove from" senses. Mihia (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There are enough examples of “clearing the rocks” (of a field or suchlike) meaning “removing the rocks” to merit inclusion. I think that in relating that a field was cleared, one would specify the nature of the undesirable elements removed, like “the field was cleared of rocks”, or “the field was cleared of fans”, unless in the context it had already been stated that the field was not yet suitable for agriculture, being littered with rocks, or that the game had been suspended when fans stormed the field. In a phrase like “every second 1 to 2 acres of rainforest are cleared for palm oil plantation”, it is understood what the rainforest is being cleared of: rainforest. It does not need a further specification. So a corresponding definition might be: “(transitive, of a forest) To raze; to fell all trees of.”  --Lambiam 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there are two types of objects of clear:

To remove (all obstructive objects) from (something)

To clear trees etc. from the hillside

To clear the hillside of trees, etc.

But "to clear (some substrate)" without specifying what is being cleared implies that "everything" obstructive is being removed. "Honey, could you clear the table?" means Honey is to remove all food, plates, cutlery, glassware, used napkins, etc. but not necessarily the tablecloth, flowers, etc. because the latter are not obstructive at the time.

I looked to see if Century 1911 or a OneLook reference had a sense like the one under challenge and didn't find one. I wish I didn't find little problems like this (or worse) in almost every long (and ergo hard-to-edit) English entry. DCDuring (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I assume that we don't want to have separate definitions for 'clearing the table/room/shelf/lot/desk/peninsula/bed/countertop/etc'. The objects being removed are mostly clear from context. I view the 'rainforest' example as the same. DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I added what seems to me to be the missing sense, like so:

2. (transitive) To remove (items or material) so as to leave something unobstructed or open.

Please clear all this stuff off the table.

The loggers came and cleared the trees.

Hopefully this should cover a transitive intention of the RFV'd sense. I left the RFV'd sense intact for now, in case there is a "strong" intransitive sense that needs covering. My thinking is that a "weak" use, such as "What are the loggers doing?" / "They're already clearing", which probably could be attested, is not worth mentioning. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It should get its 30 days. DCDuring (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Rightio. A bit of a puzzle remains for me about what to do with the following quotation, which is presently under sense 1:

Since the mid-1980s, when Indonesia first began to clear its bountiful forests on an industrial scale in favour of lucrative palm-oil plantations, “haze” has become an almost annual occurrence in South-East Asia. The cheapest way to clear logged woodland is to burn it, producing an acrid cloud of foul white smoke that, carried by the wind, can cover hundreds, or even thousands, of square miles.

It isn't completely clear to me whether these uses of clear belong to sense 1 or sense 2. I am leaning towards sense 2 for the first instance and sense 1 for the second, but I'm not certain. What do you (or anyone else) think? Mihia (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To me forests are obstructors, whereas logged woodland is the substrate with stumps still remaining. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, so are you agreeing with me about the senses or disagreeing? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-resolved The added sense replace the challenged definition. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)