Talk:slut

Delete

I guess this needs deleteing or reverting??? — This unsigned comment was added by Trunkie (talk • contribs) at 11:21, 11 August 2004.

yes, it should be deleted. — This unsigned comment was added by 212.238.152.174 (talk) at 16:53, 11 August 2004.

No, this is a valid word - it just needs some contents. I have written a definition. — Paul G 17:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

bitch

Archaic meanings are fine, but was this really synonymous with bitch at some point in the distant past? Citations please. This is pretty hard to accept as valid otherwise. --Connel MacKenzie 02:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I was supprised to learn it as well. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=slut&searchmode=none provides a note on the matter; I can't remember where I first read it. The word was used when bitch was found to be more offensive. Citizen Premier 02:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a real [archaic] sense of the word; even if it does not make much sense to us now. I provided a quote from Susanna Moodie's Roughing it in the Bush (1852); I can provide more if necessary. Beobach972 15:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "slutr" really Norwegian?

In the etymology for the English word, is "slutr" really modern Norwegian? To me it looks lika a typically Old Norse word with the "r" at the end. 83.249.211.78 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It’s Norwegian dialect, from Proto-Germanic *slautjan-. Related to Danish da:w:slud. —Stephen 08:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You missed the IP's point. Modern Norwegian words do not end in consonant + -r (unless the r is part of the stem, as in Nynorsk vinter and sommar or sumar, but note that there is an epenthetic vowel in all cases). Therefore, slutr looks like an Old Norse word. Especially since you affirm that the Danish cognate does not have an r, it seems that it is a case ending and not part of the stem. On the other hand, Pfeifer's Etymological Dictionary of German (under Schloße) does quote the dialectal Modern Norwegian word as slutr, too. Odd. Perhaps some modern Norwegian dialects simply do not have epenthetic vowels in such cases. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Swedish verb

The imperative form "slut" is only correct for one of the two Swedish verbs "sluta". Is there a way to link to the correct form? Wakuran 11:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

senses

Out of the eight senses of the noun slut in English described it seems all of them except the very last are very similar. I suggest two things to do,the first being to condense the first seven into fewer, but broader explanations. The second is to mark the difference in relation of the desciptions to eachother somehow someway.

If the case permits it it might also be prudent to boil all the seven first points into one or to remove the eight entirely, depending on the case/facts (etc). — This unsigned comment was added by 77.247.146.29 (talk).

Very similar? No! None of the senses are very similar. Perhaps the most similar are "promiscuous woman" and "prostitute", but even those are clearly distinct. - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

1st and 2nd could be merged. The others are quite different. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Middle English

The etymology section for English links to a non-existent Middle English section in which the term meant "mud". It is from that which the Late Middle English slutte is referenced as having derived from. Can we add that? Etym (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo in this entry

I do not believe the photograph promoting the far-left "SlutWalk" campaign is necessary or appropriate. This is supposed to be a dictionary, not a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. -- special:contribs/2605:e000:2748:6f00:55fe:db60:508c:387c 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In this revision, @Inqilābī removed the image. I don't think including an inset figure makes Wiktionary into an encyclopedia -- plenty of other dictionaries do the same for various of their entries -- and I don't see what the politics of those depicted has to do with it. The fact the event is called a 'SlutWalk' goes to show that it is indeed a relevant image when discussing contemporary usage of the term. Arlo Barnes (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That type of image is against Wiktionary’s policy. An image should be an actual depiction of a term. This has been discussed before. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it. I have added such an image. Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: It would be better if you could mention which sense of ‘slut’ the image describes. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Would if I knew, but even restricting to a comparison of senses 1 & 2, I've no clue which the button-maker might have intended. Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a button that just contains the text "I ♥ sluts" illustrates the concept "slut". I mean, you could do the same for bagel, tulip, or airplane.

Maybe using a photo of specific people is not a good idea, since it's usually a derogatory term and personality rights could come into play both legally and morally. But if we're going to do so, using a photo of people who explicitly and proudly label themselves "sluts", as the entry had done previously, seems like the least objectionable route. We could alternatively use a drawing/painting, but even then "slut" is not the same as "scantily clad"; it refers to a pattern of behavior. I admit that the two could correlate though. 70.172.194.25 02:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that we've rolled out image previews in the search page, this discussion might attract some more attention. I think it would be best to be without an image of any kind. Thoughts? —Soap— 13:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Soap: AFAICT, image previews have been removed since you left your comment. Regardless, I'd be okay with removing the image, if nobody else objects. 70.172.194.25 05:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes they were removed rather quickly, but I got the impression that it was at least in part because they were poorly formatted, taking up too much space and leaving large gaps when there was no associated image. I think the function was designed for cross-wiki use, and Wiktionary is unlike Wikipedia in many ways. I didnt bother to follow up to see if there were more discussions for or against the images in and of themselves, so if the formatting issues are solved, the question might arise again. I would favor removing the image from this article, yes, as it doesnt illustrate the concept, and we could certainly do without an image that does. —Soap— 10:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed. 70.172.194.25 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)