Talk:marble

Tea room discussion

Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.

I visited the page of the word 'marble' for i wanted to know the meaning of the verb 'to marble'. But i noticed that the verb from is missing, i could only find a noun. Can anyone complete this entry because i want to know what it means. Thanks Vin 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Added 2 senses. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The second of them, "(intransitive, beef) To be interlaced with fat", doesn't seem to be a verb, it's more like an adjective.--Dmol 22:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can word it better, I'd appreciate it. The idea is that it is the steer that marbles its muscles with fat by eating well, although there is also a rare transitive sense of breeders marbling the meet of one breed of cattle by interbreeding with other varieties. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

for cake batter thats "marbelize" 128.252.12.73 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. marbelize and, marbleize are synonyms for marble per Random House. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tea room discussion 2

Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.

I was wondering whether the etymology of the child's toy - marble - is in fact a corruption of marvel? If so, then the entry needs to be split. -- ALGRIF talk 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, they're so-called because they used to be made of actual marble. Ƿidsiþ 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the info- -- ALGRIF talk 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We all thanks for the info but this info is not on the actual page. Is there a way to add it so anyone can see it? (and some other, alike, "missing" etymologies in other articles?) Wikifriendly --Xoristzatziki 18:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Verification

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Rfv-sense: (intransitive, beef) To be interlaced with fat.

I don't think it is intransitive, if it exists as a completely conjugated verb. I suspect that marbling (noun) and marbled (adjective) may be the only forms, which makes this tedious to search for. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I only know this sense as transitive - to put thin layers of fat between thicker layers of lean meat. SemperBlotto 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotations of SemperBlotto's transitive sense added. A Google Books search for "beef marbles" finds no intransitive verb, but one very bizarre noun. "Beef marbled" finds more quotations of the transitive sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This really seems impossible. To "marble" should denote a process; at the very least, something like "To become interlaced with fat". —Ruakh_TALK 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would guess, that "to be interlaced with fat" was an attempt at the sense used in the Business Perspectives quotation you just added. The quotation you just added seems indeed to fit better under a slightly reworded "(of beef) to become interlaced with fat" sense than under the "cause (beef) to be interlaced with fat" sense. (Put the definitions in place of the word: "Information about how an animal grades, how much it weighs, how it [causes (beef? itself?) to be interlaced with fat] and how it has converted feed helps farmers hone their growing practices" versus "Information about how an animal grades, how much it weighs, how it [is/becomes interlaced with fat] and how it has converted feed helps farmers hone their growing practices".) - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Of the three quotations now under "(of cattle) to cause its meat to be interlaced with fat", I think only Heather Smith Thomas’ could support that sense. ("The Angus-type beef calf may [cause its own meat to be interlaced with fat] and finish quicker" almost makes sense, although I still think it means "the Angus-type beef calf may [have its meat become interlaced with fat] and finish quicker".) The Theodore Carroll Byerly is not in that sense, though — put the two definitions into it and see: "thinner animals rarely had enough excess energy in their diet to cause the meat to [cause their meat to be interlaced with fat]"? "to cause the meat to cause the meat to interlaced"? Isn't it simply "to cause the meat to [become interlaced with fat]"? - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the 1978 quotation is definitely saying that the meat is marbling: it exactly matches the current definition, "(intransitive, of beef) To become interlaced with fat", of the RFV'd sense. The 2000 and 2009 cites are in a sense that might be defined as "(intransitive, of cattle) To have its beef become interlaced with fat." ("Cause" seems wrong, though. The animal isn't really causing it; it's just the topic.) Ordinarily I would say that these two cites could be merged into the RFV'd sense, with the def adjusted accordingly (something like, "(intransitive, of beef) To become interlaced with fat; said also of the cattle"), except that they seem more similar to the 1848 cite, which is transitive, and which clearly distinguishes the cattle from the beef (in that the subject refers to the former, the direct object to the latter). I think the best solution might be to create a single sense for the whole mess, and grammatical subsenses for the various configurations that assign different elements of {cattle, beef, farmer} to different elements of {subject, direct object}. (But then, would each separate configuration need to have three cites?) —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, on closer examination, I saw and was about to comment that the 2000 Business Perspectives and 2009 Heather Smith Thomas quotations are about the animals, not the meat, as you pointed out in an edit summary. I will check how (if) any technical dictionaries define the verb. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The intransitive usages seem quite rare. If we have require precises definition that are fully substitutable, we are apparently going to lose them. Could we finesse this by combining transitive and intransitive senses (and more significantly their citations) under ergative? Or could we combine the two possible subjects of the intransitive senses ("cattle or certain other livestock" and "the meat of cattle or certain other livestock"). It wouldn't be the end of lexicography as we hope it to be to omit the full verb senses where the attestation is so scanty. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Having one ergative sense "(of animals or their meat) ..." (and leaving the existing first and second senses "cause to be streaked" respectively "be streaked") is a decent solution. Having one transitive sense "(of animals or their meat) to cause to be interlaced with fat" and one intransitive sense "(of beef) to become interlaced with fat" (with the 1912-1970-1974-1978 quotations) is also a decent solution, and because we have the quotations to support it it is perhaps better, but in that case I'm not sure what to do with the 2000 and 2009 quotations. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit longer before removing any senses, though — we keep finding more quotations. Just now I found one specifically about animals. - -sche (discuss) 00:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Every sense now has three or four quotations. Cited? - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the quotations are now on the citations page; the quotations I thought were most illustrating remain also in the entry. Feel free to move more quotations back into the entry — or out of it, although I think each sense should be left at least one quotation (to show how it's used). - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)