Talk:today is a good day to die
Add topicLatest comment: 1 year ago by Oren neu dag in topic Star trek Klingons
Etymology Section
[edit]I'm not sure what is going on, here, but it has two lines and they outright contradict each other. They're in a conversational tone and are both unsourced. Can somebody provide sources to clear this up? 68.103.227.108 03:28, 27 July 2016 (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.
Contradictory and unsourced etymology. Any ideas? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I thought it was made up in Hollywood for white-guys-with-makeup to say in oaters. Alternatively, it might be a calque from Klingon. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can figure out without references, Crazy Horse actually said "Hóka-héy! Nake nula wauŋ welo!", the second part of which which has been mistranslated as today is a good day to die. It's been almost thirty years since I studied Lakhota at UCLA, and that was only a few hours worth, so I can't give you a correct translation. I do remember the -lo ending (it goes on the main verb at the end of a sentence, and traditionally only a warrior can use it), and that the word for "good" is "wašté", which isn't in the sentence above, so it looks like real Dakota Sioux, and it doesn't literally mean "it's a good day to die", but that's all I can tell you. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it's just literal, meaning today is a good day to die. Perhaps RFD. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input! Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Renard Migrant – I just don't see how it's appropriate for Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it's just literal, meaning today is a good day to die. Perhaps RFD. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can figure out without references, Crazy Horse actually said "Hóka-héy! Nake nula wauŋ welo!", the second part of which which has been mistranslated as today is a good day to die. It's been almost thirty years since I studied Lakhota at UCLA, and that was only a few hours worth, so I can't give you a correct translation. I do remember the -lo ending (it goes on the main verb at the end of a sentence, and traditionally only a warrior can use it), and that the word for "good" is "wašté", which isn't in the sentence above, so it looks like real Dakota Sioux, and it doesn't literally mean "it's a good day to die", but that's all I can tell you. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- To DCDuring (and all others): see at your own User Page:
- "All words2 in all languages
- The ordinary-word meaning of this slogan is somewhat misleading. The following notes explain the qualifications:
- [...]
- 2"Word" can include letters, numbers, symbols, abbreviations, proverbs, idiomatic expressions, some non-idiomatic expressions, clitics, affixes." (emphasis added by me, NoychoH). NoychoH (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- To DCDuring (and all others): see at your own User Page:
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.
I see someone's used the RFD debate as an incentive to butcher the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- A cleanup can be done following the RFD discussion, I think. I'll try and look into it soon. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.
While it's a nice quotation, and I like it, it's just literal. Refers to today being a good day to die. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not literal at all. Every day can be referred as today (and in fact was or is or will be do, in due time), but no day, whatsoever, is good to die. It is a metaphor for an obligation (or stake) more important than life. NoychoH (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- It might be your opinion that no day is a good day to die, but we don't define entries in terms of your opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Neither of the definitions provided literally mean just the SOP. bd2412 T 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Abstain for the moment. But since no day is, literally, a 'good day' to die, I guess it needs explaining, so is okay as an entry. But I would think the defs need to be RFV'd. The second one seems unlikely to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A familiar quotation, although attribution seems very tricky. According to Wikipedia's entry on "a good day to die", that phrase (without "today is") was actually attributed to Low Dog, a companion of Sitting Bull, in 1881. It was then used in Black Elk's autobiography in 1931. I also found some independent uses.
- From an issue of the Trans-Communicator in 1927: "I thought either day out of the seven was a good day to die".
- In 1974, James Cameron's Indian Summer (about India) claims that the phase was found in a book of essays by Anthony Burgess, attributing it to Pope John XXIII, who supposedly said that "any day was a good day to die."
- At some point the phrase seems to have become associated with Crazy Horse, but the first hits I'm finding are from the 1970's. It was the title of a novel by Jim Harrison, reviewed in The New York Times on September 9, 1973, but from the description this probably is related to Crazy Horse.
- In 1975, Stephen E. Ambrose, in Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, quotes Crazy Horse: "Ho-ka Hey! It is a good day to fight! It is a good day to die!", supposedly spoken on June 25, 1876. But from what I'm reading, this may be an embellishment, since Crazy Horse doesn't seem to have said it, and there seems to be the belief that "a good day to die" is a colorful but not literal translation of "Ho-ka Hey!"
- I suspect, but don't know, that the exact wording, "today is a good day to die" may have been popularized, if not originated, by Star Trek: The Next Generation, where it was said, perhaps on several occasions, by Worf. I haven't figured out when the first occasion was, but as the program started in 1987, I'd guess the first time was in the earlier seasons, between 1987 and 1991. I found quotes of this and variations from later seasons, but I think that the first occasion was before that. Perhaps the scriptwriter was half-remembering a misattributed misquotation of Crazy Horse, perhaps not. It could have been thought of independently, and I haven't found any earlier exact quotations. P Aculeius (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Earliest I can find is 1961 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iuiF0LaKThoC&q=%22today+is+a+good+day+to+die%22&dq=%22today+is+a+good+day+to+die%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUra2J45nOAhXMto8KHfp5AEsQ6AEIPjAG . But 1961 is a long time after 1876. And indeed the Wikipedia article says this attribution to Crazy Horse is inaccurate. But still, none of the results I looked at meant that one should live life to the fullest, or anything other than a bravado warcry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect: to good day to die. I don't think we need anything longer than that. Purplebackpack89 23:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be a "move" rather than a redirect, since there's nothing there yet? bd2412 T 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- It be a move without deleting the redirect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be a "move" rather than a redirect, since there's nothing there yet? bd2412 T 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Today is a good day to keep! Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete, unless proper quotes are provided. To me the "senses" look dubious. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete sense 2, and I lean towards deleting sense 1, too. But perhaps we should put this RFD on hold and RFV the senses to determine if they're actually attested; sense 2 seems particularly likely to not be attested, except perhaps in a context where a literal reading would work (today is a good day to day, like any other, it could happen, so...). - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but mark for a stub. It's a shame to delete an article on something really pertinent only because the original User didn't know how to finish it. NoychoH (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's why we like to see real uses of the word. Real dictionaries either copy other real dictionaries' definitions or start with some evidence of how a term is used (literary quotes, other print sources, transcripts of conversation, collocation tables, etc). There is nothing in an RfD that will prevent someone from starting a new entry (or definition) if they start with evidence. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am a lazy user so I understand other lazy users. If I am looking for an entry in Wikipedia or Wiktionary and I don't find it, I am always offered a proposat to start it from a scratch, and I rarely take up this offer/opportunity. Too much effort required, too little time at my disposal etc. (I don't say I never do it, e.g. today I have made a whole entry on "The Klingon Way" in Wikipedia). But if I see an article that needs improvement, and I am able to improve it - I do it. Less effort needed, less time required, I do not need to know eveything, divine what categories to ascribe etc., etc. Less responsibility is a good incentive do do a bit, too much responsibility for a whole new entry is a barrier soe people would not like to cross. So if you delete the entry, maybe within the next 10 years nobody would start it again. It's, however, much more probable, that within that period some lazy User (or even nota so lazy one) would improve an imperfect entry. That's my opinion. NoychoH (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- If having any kind of entry or definition were, ipso facto, a good thing, then making any contribution easier would be a good thing. When Wiktionary lacked entries for many common English terms, it was important to make entry easy. I think we are past that point. We need to add some definitions to existing entries, supplement definitions with quotations and naturalistic usage examples, and generally improve entry quality. Adding entries for English terms whose basic meaning is SoP, without any evidence that there is an extended meaning that has entered the lexicon is not a contribution valuable to users. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- In general, in principle you are right, yet I think that in practice you are wrong. Yet, I don't think I will convince you. Consider, however, that I have ammended the entry in question a bit (in a lazy way, I admit) before entering this discussion here - by referring to Wikipedia articles. Several metaphorical meanings can be found exactly in the Wikipedia... linked by me. Maybe someone could transfer them to Wiktionary. Now, in order to diminish the power of your position, I have ameliorated the article again in several ways, also added a few remarks to the Discussion page. You may check it there now. I think these "betterments" of mine face and answer your doubts, at least to some degree. Hope this will nullify the willingness of some of you to delete this article. This is however my final remark and I do not intend to continue the discussion or correcting the article. I have submitted my opinion, explained and deepened them, this was my obligation, and if it will not prevail, I can only say: "Today is a good day to die". It was a pleasure to debate with you. NoychoH (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the entry's been butchered since the rfd debate began. It's now at requests for deletion, cleanup and verification all at the same time. You don't see that very often. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- In general, in principle you are right, yet I think that in practice you are wrong. Yet, I don't think I will convince you. Consider, however, that I have ammended the entry in question a bit (in a lazy way, I admit) before entering this discussion here - by referring to Wikipedia articles. Several metaphorical meanings can be found exactly in the Wikipedia... linked by me. Maybe someone could transfer them to Wiktionary. Now, in order to diminish the power of your position, I have ameliorated the article again in several ways, also added a few remarks to the Discussion page. You may check it there now. I think these "betterments" of mine face and answer your doubts, at least to some degree. Hope this will nullify the willingness of some of you to delete this article. This is however my final remark and I do not intend to continue the discussion or correcting the article. I have submitted my opinion, explained and deepened them, this was my obligation, and if it will not prevail, I can only say: "Today is a good day to die". It was a pleasure to debate with you. NoychoH (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- If having any kind of entry or definition were, ipso facto, a good thing, then making any contribution easier would be a good thing. When Wiktionary lacked entries for many common English terms, it was important to make entry easy. I think we are past that point. We need to add some definitions to existing entries, supplement definitions with quotations and naturalistic usage examples, and generally improve entry quality. Adding entries for English terms whose basic meaning is SoP, without any evidence that there is an extended meaning that has entered the lexicon is not a contribution valuable to users. DCDuring TALK 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am a lazy user so I understand other lazy users. If I am looking for an entry in Wikipedia or Wiktionary and I don't find it, I am always offered a proposat to start it from a scratch, and I rarely take up this offer/opportunity. Too much effort required, too little time at my disposal etc. (I don't say I never do it, e.g. today I have made a whole entry on "The Klingon Way" in Wikipedia). But if I see an article that needs improvement, and I am able to improve it - I do it. Less effort needed, less time required, I do not need to know eveything, divine what categories to ascribe etc., etc. Less responsibility is a good incentive do do a bit, too much responsibility for a whole new entry is a barrier soe people would not like to cross. So if you delete the entry, maybe within the next 10 years nobody would start it again. It's, however, much more probable, that within that period some lazy User (or even nota so lazy one) would improve an imperfect entry. That's my opinion. NoychoH (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's why we like to see real uses of the word. Real dictionaries either copy other real dictionaries' definitions or start with some evidence of how a term is used (literary quotes, other print sources, transcripts of conversation, collocation tables, etc). There is nothing in an RfD that will prevent someone from starting a new entry (or definition) if they start with evidence. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I still haven't seen any evidence that this doesn't just mean "today is a good day to die". I'm aware that this is a vote so evidence doesn't matter, but I still like to see evidence. I'm seeing lots of blind assertion that this isn't literal, but nobody can say why. Is this lexically any different to today is a good day to buy a house? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it can be kept on the basis that it is now a proverb with the meaning indicated by sense 2: see [1], [2], [3] and [4]. (Compare all the world's a stage.) Sense 1 seems to be sum-of-parts, while sense 3 seems completely fictional with no
real-worldidiomatic application (i.e., it just means "we are prepared to die", which is also SoP). — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)- All we need now is the citations that show it is a proverb that has some specific non-SoP meaning. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at some of the usage at Google Books, the meaning of the expression when used in dialog (ie, pseudo-colloquially) seems quite SoP, using good in the sense "suitable, fit" (which, BTW, we don't have in our definition, an example of why I don't use Wiktionary for my own needs).
- The implication of the use of the expression depends a lot on the cultural context and who the speaker is. I find three classes of implications:
- I (speaker) (am resigned to/welcome) dying to escape my situation (eg, depression, pain).
- All of us (speaker and colleagues) should be willing to die to defend our people/honor/comrades-in-arms.
- We should be ready to die at any time and therefore should have our moral affairs in order. (the Pope John sense, but used in self-help books, both religious and secular.
- That is, some awareness of the context is needed to get the implication, much as with an expression like "It's time for breakfast", the nature of breakfast differing by geography, level of affluence, etc, and time differing similarly.
- Incidentally, there is significant usage with other forms of be and times other than today for dying and even some usage in the plural (ie, days). That is, it is not really a fixed expression except among those with, on the one hand, limited vocabulary and, on the other, a need for a rich understanding of the allusions of the expression (Native Americans, Klingons). DCDuring TALK 23:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is that a vote to delete? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am still uncertain about resolution. IMO, there is little justification for the entry under challenge. Dropping today is captures more of the usage, but good day to die still seems SoP. In addition, it seems to me hard to come up with a definition for good day to die that captures any of the implications (or allusions) that the phrase under challenge carries. A "COBUILD" syle definition would work, but we don't normally use those.
- The arguments to keep, such as they are, ignore the absence of citations, so they are arguments in favor of keeping definitions that are not supported by attestation. That seems irresponsible. If we were forced to come to a decision now, I would vote to delete, but I'd rather wait for RfV, cleanup, and even rewriting the definitions from scratch. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- What about the citations indicated in my earlier post? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- To me the first, second, and third seem like re-interpretations (of the forced-optimism variety) rather than definitions. (The fourth seems to use the expression literally.) I would hate to have to include every similar bishops' re-interpretation of a line in the KJV. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, it looks like we are heading for deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- To me the first, second, and third seem like re-interpretations (of the forced-optimism variety) rather than definitions. (The fourth seems to use the expression literally.) I would hate to have to include every similar bishops' re-interpretation of a line in the KJV. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- What about the citations indicated in my earlier post? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is that a vote to delete? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- All we need now is the citations that show it is a proverb that has some specific non-SoP meaning. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think it can be kept on the basis that it is now a proverb with the meaning indicated by sense 2: see [1], [2], [3] and [4]. (Compare all the world's a stage.) Sense 1 seems to be sum-of-parts, while sense 3 seems completely fictional with no
Deleted as sum-of-parts – no quotations indicating idiomatic usage located. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @SMUconlaw: Please undelete the entry. First, this is RFD, and an entry is deleted in RFD based on consensus or its lack, not based on quotations. Constrast this to RFV. Furthermore, in WT:RFV#today is a good day to die, bd2412 has provided quotations suggestive of idiomatic use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- I see 4 keeps and 5 deletes => no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Let me add one keep from me based on the quotations found by bd2412 in WT:RFV, suggestive of non-literal use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- All right, in that case I am undeleting but closing this discussion for lack of consensus. Please continue the discussion at RFV. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
The senses are, as noted at RFD, imaginative; are they attested in all their connotations or is the attested meaning of this phrase a bit more straightforward? - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's being discussed at RFD; no need to discuss it here separately, I think. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- This question is more basic than RFD. If the senses aren't attested, the RFD is moot. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is a good RFV; thank you. Are the senses attested per WT:ATTEST? What are the attesting quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've left a message at "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#today is a good day to die". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- 1996, Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore, Star Trek: First Contact (character of Worf [while fighting a Borg cube, after being told his ship had no shields or weapons]): "Perhaps today is a good day to die. Prepare for ramming speed!" bd2412 T 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see sufficient evidence that the Star Trek usage is anything but SoP. The quotation above just means "we are prepared to die". If I'm not mistaken, even science fiction usage needs to be idiomatic. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Being prepared to die hardly makes it a literal "good day to die". bd2412 T 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Today is a good day to cite this entry preliminary to RfDing it. So the cites should only be uses that show that this expression is somehow different from others of the form "today is a good day to [verb]". At Google Books [verb] includes start, begin, give, say, consider, stop, bind, get, dissect, try, call, fight, stop, reflect, skip, climb, stay, dry, do, be, purchase, make. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that there are good days to undertake these mundane tasks doesn't reflect on a day being described as a good day to literally die. For example, a good day to climb might be any day when climbing conditions are good, i.e. climbing can be done with greater ease. Is a good day to die a day when dying can be done more easily? bd2412 T 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- All we need are three cites for each of the current definitions or for new ones that fit the citations. Then we can have an intelligent RfD, instead of gum-flapping. It would be a courtesy to have each citation in the entry under the definition it may best support. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I indicated some citations in my post over at RFD that I think may support the current sense 2. However, I have to say that they tend to explain what the phrase means rather than to use the phrase in context. If these aren't thought to be adequate, then let's go ahead and delete the entry. I believe senses 1 and 3 to be entirely SoP, so finding citations for them serves no purpose. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that senses 1 and 3 are redundant to each other; the "Klingon locution" is just an example of the general idea that it is noble to be willing to sacrifice oneself in battle. With respect to the SOP question, note that it is not necessary to actually die (or intend to actually die) to use this phrase. In the example given above, the speaker does not go on to die. bd2412 T 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I indicated some citations in my post over at RFD that I think may support the current sense 2. However, I have to say that they tend to explain what the phrase means rather than to use the phrase in context. If these aren't thought to be adequate, then let's go ahead and delete the entry. I believe senses 1 and 3 to be entirely SoP, so finding citations for them serves no purpose. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- All we need are three cites for each of the current definitions or for new ones that fit the citations. Then we can have an intelligent RfD, instead of gum-flapping. It would be a courtesy to have each citation in the entry under the definition it may best support. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that there are good days to undertake these mundane tasks doesn't reflect on a day being described as a good day to literally die. For example, a good day to climb might be any day when climbing conditions are good, i.e. climbing can be done with greater ease. Is a good day to die a day when dying can be done more easily? bd2412 T 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Today is a good day to cite this entry preliminary to RfDing it. So the cites should only be uses that show that this expression is somehow different from others of the form "today is a good day to [verb]". At Google Books [verb] includes start, begin, give, say, consider, stop, bind, get, dissect, try, call, fight, stop, reflect, skip, climb, stay, dry, do, be, purchase, make. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Being prepared to die hardly makes it a literal "good day to die". bd2412 T 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see sufficient evidence that the Star Trek usage is anything but SoP. The quotation above just means "we are prepared to die". If I'm not mistaken, even science fiction usage needs to be idiomatic. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- 2009, Paul T. Bryant, Old Men: Sketches of a Time in Life, p. 146: He whooped again and then shouted, "I am Walking Bear! Piegan! Today is a good day to kill Crow. Today is a good day to die!"
- 2001, Engineering News-record, Vol. 246, Issues 13-25, p. 72: "Otherwise, small business owners like those in the construction industry will have to be prescient, as well as politically and financially astute, in deciding if today is a good day to die".
- 1980, Naturalist, Vol. 31-33, p. 60: "Outside the auditorium hung an effigy of Sig and inside was a brooding hostility that often focused on Sig and his reputation. Sig said to me, ‘Today is a good day to die’.
- bd2412 T 05:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I like the figurative use in the 2001 and 1980 cites, which seem to me to support a definition that is not SoP and not clearly in the entry as currently written. Is the use in the 2009 cite figurative? Are there other instances of figurative uses? The more literal use might belong in etymology. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The 2009 cite is in the context of a fictional encounter in which an aging Native American warrior is actually challenging members of an enemy tribe to fight, so he might literally be contemplating death (although I would still argue that this is a statement of willingness to die, not a desire to die, so he and other speakers using this phrase are not actually conveying a literal belief that it is "a good day" to die). bd2412 T 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look for additional figurative use, possibly just for the core good day to die, or for plural days. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: see RFD discussion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)- I have undeleted the entry pursuant to a request at RFD (the discussion there has been closed for lack of consensus, and should continue here). As regards the 1980 and 2001 quotations, what does the term indicate? It's hard to tell as there's not much context. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I have only looked in Google Books. I leave it to others to search for uses in other sources. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look for additional figurative use, possibly just for the core good day to die, or for plural days. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The 2009 cite is in the context of a fictional encounter in which an aging Native American warrior is actually challenging members of an enemy tribe to fight, so he might literally be contemplating death (although I would still argue that this is a statement of willingness to die, not a desire to die, so he and other speakers using this phrase are not actually conveying a literal belief that it is "a good day" to die). bd2412 T 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I like the figurative use in the 2001 and 1980 cites, which seem to me to support a definition that is not SoP and not clearly in the entry as currently written. Is the use in the 2009 cite figurative? Are there other instances of figurative uses? The more literal use might belong in etymology. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Passed (barely). — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Star trek Klingons
[edit]Just a question: shouldn't it be also be mentioned that this Idiom is also a halmark of the Klingon species from Star Trek? Oren neu dag (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)