Talk:robber
Add topicRequest for verification
[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
I don't think that a robber is the same thing as a thief. A robber uses force against someone to steal. A thief uses stealth, not force. The difference is also pertinent to the translations. I replaced the French voleur by ravisseur because of same difference. Jcwf 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- In legal English you are certainly correct. I wonder how precise ordinary usage is. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- From what I've gathered, thief and robber are semi-synonymous (i.e. interchangeable in speech) but thief would conjure up more of the ninja image while robber would imply the more forceful character. L☺g☺maniac chat? 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- One sense is not enough unless it is merely "one who robs". MWonline has 2 main senses and 5 subsenses for "rob", including a sense "steal", ie take by stealth. Other dictionaries have a similar range fo senses at rob. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- google books:"the robbers broke in" gives plenty of instances of stealth. —RuakhTALK 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't need verification, just a rewritten definition (thief is one synonym, but not a good definition). Just one who robs or one who commits robbery would do, and the act can be defined under its name. Robbery can be armed or violent, and it can also be despoliation or depredation. —Michael Z. 2009-07-30 04:50 z
- In French, ravisseur normally means kidnaper (in modern use). I change the translation to cambrioleur. Lmaltier 10:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
RFV passed (clearly widespread use). Per Mzajac, I've added an {{rfc-sense}}; maybe someone will figure out a better def. —RuakhTALK 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (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.
Per RFV discussion. —RuakhTALK 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good now?—msh210℠ 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)