Talk:book
RFD discussion: April—June 2007
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
book#Etymology 2. --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard of this. I'm pretty sure it must exist, though I'd guess that knowledge of it is far, far more widespread than use of it. I doubt we can find three durably archived attestations. —RuakhTALK 14:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, SMSes aren't usually durably archived. And note, if you are in the US, the cell technology deployed is 3-4 generations behind the rest of the world; people in the US don't use SMS very much. (Do you have a SIM card in your phone? Can you swap into into someone else's phone and have your own phone number and contact numbers? This is bog-standard everywhere else. Phones work anywhere, except the US, and US phones don't work anywhere else, except sometimes if you reload all the software.) We use SMSes all the time. This is very familiar, but I don't know if it rates an entry; I don't think anyone uses "book" to mean "cool" outside of SMSes. (And there are a number of others: home/good etc etc) Robert Ullmann 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
RFV failed. Sense removed. —RuakhTALK 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In my book
Someone claims that “in my book” means (in English) something like “in my opinion” but not exactly the same. Webster confirms this as well. Could someone who is sure in the usage of this idiom add it to our entry? Thanks – b_jonas 11:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, more confidence than "opinion". "In my book taking 20 pills a day is bound to have some serious side effects" etc. Soap 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. See archived discussion of October 2008. 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Tea room discussion
- Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.
I cannot find a sense among the many senses that corresponds to "He wrote a book." Could someone explain which sense does or add an appropriate sense. I would myself, but am having trouble understanding metonymy well enough to get it right. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- We had the sense A major division of a published work, larger than a chapter, commonly an academic publication or the Bible, which was not broad enough, so I've taken the liberty of changing it to A long work fit for publication, typically prose, such as a novel, textbook, or titled section of the Bible. Doubtless could be worded better.—msh210℠ 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, genius. You have combined two senses with "or". You have defined something as a whole or a part. Maybe that is the way to handle the game show thing and other "metonymies". Whether it appears as a separate "#" is not of great concern. In fact it is a space-wasting negative. I think that is what I have been looking for. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of separating those senses. One is tied fairly closely to sense #1 (a bound collection of sheets), while one is more akin to chapter, canto, and so on; I think they're clearer separate than together. —RuakhTALK 13:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mind? I have no mind. I am the village idiot. (Actually, I like it better your way. Thanks.)—msh210℠ 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of separating those senses. One is tied fairly closely to sense #1 (a bound collection of sheets), while one is more akin to chapter, canto, and so on; I think they're clearer separate than together. —RuakhTALK 13:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A Potential problem with the compound list
In the list of compounds formed from this word, there is one particular entry--book-ghoul--for which no article exists. An analysis of public domain scans of the first edition of the OED-1 shows that this usage is at best a very limited metaphor. I suggest that the link in the compound-list be eliminated. Mathmagic 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term does exist though it seems to be rare: Google Books result. I suggest creating the entry (I'll take care of that shortly) and leaving it in the list. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"book it":
"book it" = go fast ... Anyone know the etymology of this? Hard to see how it could evolve from a noun that describes an object that doesnt move. Soap 23:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The verb book meaning to go (fast) probably comes from the word boogie, as in boogie-woogie. —Stephen (Talk) 13:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Etymology 2, sense 6 specifically lists intransitive; I think the usage can be transitive or intransitive. Adapting the example sentence:
- He was really booking, until he passed the speed trap.
- He was really booking it, until he passed the speed trap.
- NB: not sure the example sentence should have a comma ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wynant~enwiki (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Pronunciation
It is pronounced in British English. --88.64.237.129 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- By some northern speakers of British English it is. Added. — This unsigned comment was added by 88.76.16.83 (talk) at 12:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC).
RFD discussion: January–April 2020
Etymology 1
The entry states without question that the etymology comes from the root meaning "beech tree". This was Pokorny's view, and is repeated by Calvert Watkins; both reconstruct the PIE as *bhago-. However, more recent dictionaries reject this on both formal and semantic grounds: formal because "book" would have to be derived from a root noun, "beach" from an o-declension; and semantic, because archeology has not produced examples of the hypothesized early writing on beech. Examples of scholars who take a different view would be Elmar Seebold (the 2002 revision of Kluge) at "Buch", or Marlies Philippa et al. (2003) at "boek". They instead see a connection with Sanskrit *bhaga- (share), from PIE *bhag- (to share). The Germanic word meant letter of the alphabet before it meant book, and it can be surmised that in a pre-literate culture, symbols might be drawn to mark property. So the the semantic development could be something like: share > property > ownership symbol > letter > written work. This argument is relevant to the etymology not just on this page but on a series of others for related words, so I would prefer not to change it without consultation. Are there any opinions? --Doric Loon (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is precisely the type of thing that the Etymology scriptorium was created for. Add the template
{{rfv-etym}}at the end of the etymology here and use the "+" link to create a topic there.Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)- Thanks. The template delivered an error message, but I have written on the scriptorium page. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Some more (old?) phrases regarding a gambling "book"
John Camden Hotten's Slang Dictionary (1873) says:
- “Making a book upon it,” is a common phrase to denote that a man is prepared to lay the odds against the horses in a race.
- “That does not suit my book,” i.e., does not accord with my other arrangements.
- The principle of making a book, or betting round, as it is sometimes termed, is to lay a previously-determined sum against every horse in the race, or as many horses as possible; and should the bookmaker “get round,” i.e., succeed in laying against as many horses as will more than balance the odds laid, he is certain to be a winner.
- The bookmaker is distinguished from the backer by its being his particular business to bet against horses, or to lay, while the backer, who is also often a professional gambler, stands by the chance of a horse, or the chances of a set of horses about which he supposes himself to be possessed of special information. A bookmaker rarely backs horses for his own particular fancy—he may indeed put a sovereign or a fiver on an animal about which he has been told something, but as a rule if he specially fancies a horse, the bookmaker lets him “run for the book,” i.e., does not lay against him. When a bookmaker backs a horse in the course of his regular business, it is because he has laid too much against him, and finds it convenient to share the danger with other bookmakers.