Talk:drunk as a cunt
Add topicLatest comment: 11 years ago by Equinox in topic RFC discussion: July–November 2013
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.
Sum of parts. Nearly shot it on sight, but thought better of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why delete this and not drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord? Are there quantitative or other criteria to distinguish them? DCDuring TALK 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point, though that illustrates my sum of parts argument, as opposed to refuting it. Counterargument: cunts, skunks and lords aren't necessarily all that drunk. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- McGraw-Hill idioms and Cambridge Advanced Learner's have drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord. "Drunk as a cunt" seems older, but we aren't ageist, are we? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would be happy if we simply had a rebuttable presumption that a simile is not an idiom. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- That means a lot of deletions, though. For the moment I think we have to keep it. DAVilla 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is a byword/proverb and its awesome, keepLucifer 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point, though that illustrates my sum of parts argument, as opposed to refuting it. Counterargument: cunts, skunks and lords aren't necessarily all that drunk. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
kept -- Liliana • 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
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.
This entry should be deleted, as it is not a phrase that is used often enough for it to deserve its own entry. --82.34.243.21 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- WT:RFV is where we deal with such things, but I'll save you the trouble: there's more than enough evidence of usage for it to pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- WT:RFD because the IP is not denying this exists. 'Not used enough' not really a valid deletion reason; feel free to list it but don't expect it to actually be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a valid entry because it is a typical stylized comparison with many nouns replacing cunt, such as lord, skunk, fish, and sailor. COCA has about 20 others with single occurrences, with the top four being just more than half of all occurrences. A usage note at drunk as a skunk or drunk as a lord should cover the situation until we have some good information of regional distribution or something. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is this a common UK expression. I don't think it has been common in the US in my lifetime. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's very common. There's an argument that it's just a transparent simile and therefore not idiomatic. If anyone wants to RFD it go head, just I can't be bothered nominating marginal cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- On mature reflection, it does seem valid both because it is not transparent and because it seems to be regional in its usage. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's very common. There's an argument that it's just a transparent simile and therefore not idiomatic. If anyone wants to RFD it go head, just I can't be bothered nominating marginal cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is this a common UK expression. I don't think it has been common in the US in my lifetime. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a valid entry because it is a typical stylized comparison with many nouns replacing cunt, such as lord, skunk, fish, and sailor. COCA has about 20 others with single occurrences, with the top four being just more than half of all occurrences. A usage note at drunk as a skunk or drunk as a lord should cover the situation until we have some good information of regional distribution or something. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- WT:RFD because the IP is not denying this exists. 'Not used enough' not really a valid deletion reason; feel free to list it but don't expect it to actually be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This culminated in an RFD, which the entry passed. Equinox ◑ 17:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)