Talk:family
Request for deletion
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
- rfd-sense: adjective - Related to the family.
- The dog was kept as a family pet.
- For Apocynaceae, this type of flower is a family characteristic.
Seems to be an attributive use of the noun. --Dan Polansky 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Move to RfV. The usage examples are consistent with attributive use. But I think that this forms a true comparative and therefore should be presented as an adjective too. It would be worth citing as adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and expand definition, but delete these cites. Family has a meaning of having traditional values, being conservative, even old fashioned - for example "family values". The examples are clearly wrong, and are attributive uses of the noun.--Dmol 09:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Moved to RFV. Equinox ◑ 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Request for verification
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
Moved here from RFD per consensus: see WT:RFD#family. Equinox ◑ 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Comment moved from RFD) Keep and expand definition, but delete these cites. Family has a meaning of having traditional values, being conservative, even old fashioned - for example "family values". The examples are clearly wrong, and are attributive uses of the noun.--Dmol 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have inserted two senses with usexes that illustrate the additional meanings that would justify keeping the adjective PoS. I would argue that both have widespread use in the US. The value of the RfVed sense is to remind users that some meanings are limited to attributive use of senses that are the noun's. If there is agreement as to the widespread use and the suitability of the usage examples, this matter can be closed forthwith. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Striking: I've moved this sense up to the ===Noun=== section. Thanks for your new senses, DCDuring. —RuakhTALK 05:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Question
Is meaning 7, "(uncountable) Collectively, people who are members of one's intimate social group. They treated me like family." really a meaning for "family"? Or is it really about the expression "like family"?Redddogg 02:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's a meaning of the word "family", because you can say "they treated me as family", or "they made me feel like one of the family", or "I was soon part of the family", all with the same meaning. Also, in "like family" the "like" is no different to the "like" in collocations like "they treated me like dirt", "I was treated like royalty", "they made me feel like I was a child", etc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Interesting. You could be right. I still feel these are non-literal uses of the word "family." I think in any of these cases if you asked the person if he was a member of the family in question he would say no, despite using an expression that if taken literally would say he was.Redddogg 05:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you asked someone if they were a member of the family, then they would almost certainly assume you meant senses 1 or 2 of "family", unless there was other context, and that other context is not limited to using the construction "like family" (e.g. "like one of the family", "as part of the family", "as if you're family", "basically family", "might as well be family", etc.). Just because it's not a literal sense of "family" doesn't mean it can't be non-literal sense of the same word. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't think there is a different sense of the word to mean "relatives and close friends." Any more than if you said someone was "as pale as a ghost." No one would think he was dead. Redddogg 10:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- But you do find use of the word family in the other sense we have, 6. (countable) A group of people similar to one related by blood, marriage, law, or custom. Our company is one big happy family. E.g. , , . So I think the best thing here would be just to combine these two senses into one: (countable and uncountable) A group of people similar to one related by blood, marriage, law, or custom, with both example sentences. What do y'all think?—msh210℠ (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered that sense, but now I look at it combining them would make sense. Thryduulf (talk)
- I think some combining would be good, however you want to do it. It seems like part of the problem is the word itself is a bit vague and can expand and contract its meaning depending on the circumstances.Redddogg 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered that sense, but now I look at it combining them would make sense. Thryduulf (talk)
- But you do find use of the word family in the other sense we have, 6. (countable) A group of people similar to one related by blood, marriage, law, or custom. Our company is one big happy family. E.g. , , . So I think the best thing here would be just to combine these two senses into one: (countable and uncountable) A group of people similar to one related by blood, marriage, law, or custom, with both example sentences. What do y'all think?—msh210℠ (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't think there is a different sense of the word to mean "relatives and close friends." Any more than if you said someone was "as pale as a ghost." No one would think he was dead. Redddogg 10:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you asked someone if they were a member of the family, then they would almost certainly assume you meant senses 1 or 2 of "family", unless there was other context, and that other context is not limited to using the construction "like family" (e.g. "like one of the family", "as part of the family", "as if you're family", "basically family", "might as well be family", etc.). Just because it's not a literal sense of "family" doesn't mean it can't be non-literal sense of the same word. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Interesting. You could be right. I still feel these are non-literal uses of the word "family." I think in any of these cases if you asked the person if he was a member of the family in question he would say no, despite using an expression that if taken literally would say he was.Redddogg 05:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Casey Jones usage
Which definition would best correspond (or do we need to add...) to CJ's rant against the foot clan in the TMNT film? It feels like uncountable since he doesn't use an article like a/the. "You call this family? This here, or that over there, family?"
Similar would be expressions like "he is family" as opposed to "part of the family". Is this adjective? Does not take form like "familial" so not sure, confusing. 64.228.90.129 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not a separate definition. Perhaps a usage note? Equinox ◑ 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Some other examples:
- "Yeah that's right man, he's family, he's blood" in Oliver and Company
- "because I told Bee I'd say, he's family too" in transformers prime
- "He's my family" in Gotham
all examples of term being used to refer to singular person, so we should note that it need not be 2 minimum. The 3rd use by Bruce Wayne is like "he's my entire family" while the first 2 indicate a member so the possessive article versus no article are different though.
It clearly doesn't mean the entire group but possibly just a portion of it.
If we had a family member page, the usage may match this, seems to resemble how kin is used. 64.228.90.129 21:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@-sche regarding "the chair is wood" in that case shouldn't we mention that "wood" is sometimes used as an adjective where "wooden" is more appropriate? These deserve mentions if it is common to use the root term in place of its adjective form. 64.228.90.129 21:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Japanese use
Jason Ozuma repeatedly uses "family" in the "Black Boxer" arc of Hajime no Ippo, mixed in with Japanese, would this qualify the language for a heading? 64.228.90.129 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Also template
The {{also}} usage on this page seems to be inconsistent with other pages.
Template:also says:
This template links to similar entries, especially those that differ only in capitalization, diacritics, or punctuation.
Take the page ice for example. Its {{also}} links:
- Ice
- ICE
- icé
- íce
- ìce
- -ice
- Ice.
- Appendix:Variations of "ice"
Meanwhile, this page links to:
- Thesaurus:class
- nuclear family
- immediate family
- extended family
…which seem more like they should go under "Derived terms", "Related terms", and the separate "See also" section.
--Brian
- (@DTLHS, who made this relevant automated edit —suzukaze (t・c) 02:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC))
- I automatically combine multiple invocations of the template on one page since there are bots that add inflected forms with the template in the middle of the page. The template should only link to pages that differ in capitalization, diacritics, or punctuation, but I do not test for this. DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
RFD discussion: October–December 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
RFD existing noun sense 11, "Used attributively". Usexes are "family pet", meaning "pet belonging to a family", and "family characteristic", meaning "characteristic of a family", which are routinely predictable attributive uses of general noun senses and do not need mentioning separately. The third example, "family album", could have its own entry if deemed non-obvious from parts.
See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/October#any_other_family and family (2) below. — This unsigned comment was added by Mihia (talk • contribs) at 10:10, 16 October 2021.
- Delete. There should never be a noun sense that is the same as another one except for attributivity. Simply put "often attributive" on the original sense if worth noting. Equinox ◑ 10:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. A family pet usually belongs to sense 4 ("especially if they live or work together") as family pets are usually not shared between households. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sense 11 doesn't try to distinguish application to any particular sense, it just highlights that family is often used attributively. I have no objection to that. DonnanZ (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
family restaurant
I want to put "family restaurant" as a usex but I'm not sure where it should go. None Shall Revert (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
RFD discussion: October 2021–January 2023
The following information passed a request 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.
RFD two adjective senses:
- Suitable for children and adults.
- It's not good for a date, it's a family restaurant.
- Some animated movies are not just for kids, they are family movies.
- Conservative, traditional.
- The cultural struggle is for the survival of family values against all manner of atheistic amorality.
These are attributive uses of the noun, not true adjectives (and btw the fact that one might be able to say "a very/more family restaurant" is not conclusive since e.g. one can equally say "a very New York expression" or "a more New York way to dress", and hopefully we are not going to allow an adjective sense of "New York").
However, if these attributive uses are deemed non-obvious from the general noun senses, they can be moved to an "attributive use" sense of the noun and defined there.
See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/October#any_other_family and family (1) above. — This unsigned comment was added by Mihia (talk • contribs) at 10:10, 16 October 2021.
- Note we have family values. Equinox ◑ 10:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Lexico does include family as an adjective, with the sense "Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults." DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sense 1 is more plausible than sense 2, for which the only usex is not actually a usex of family but of family values, which as Equinox points out is a different entry, so delete sense 2. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep sense 1. That is not an attributive use of the noun. The Borgias is a family show in the attributive-noun sense. It’s not a family show in this sense. Conversely, Monsters, Inc. is a family show in this sense but not in the attributive-noun sense. Lereman (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep sense 1 per Lereman’s argument above. I don’t have any clear view on sense 2, family is non-attributive there too, to suggest otherwise is to claim that non-traditional families don’t exist but as this meaning of family doesn’t seem to exist outside of the set phrase family values then I’m leaning towards Delete. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there's nothing to say that there can't be more than one attributive sense: one is for families and the other is about families, but the noun is the same. Likewise, one of the few things that "woman hater" (female bigot) and "woman-hater" (misogynist) have in common is that both use "woman" as an attributive noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Upon deeper reflection and after looking at our family entry more closely, I think we should Delete adjective sense 1, as the same phrase family restaurant appears in noun sense 1 where an example of attributive use is given anyway. I think we should have another noun definition along the lines of ‘an immediate family consisting of a child or children and their married and cohabiting parents of opposite sex; a nuclear family’ and then not only could we move the usex about ‘family values’ there but we could include a usex or quote about the importance of the ‘family unit’. On that basis, I now say Delete both challenged adjective senses. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve just added a noun definition consistent with the meaning of nuclear family, copied the usex to there and added another one mentioning the ‘family unit’. Ideally I’d add some non-attributive uses of this sense but it’s hard to provide quotes that unambiguously use the word this way. There is, however, the Conservative American organisation ‘Focus on the Family’ which is clearly mainly concerned with nuclear families. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sense 2 deleted. Sense 1 remains to be resolved. I say delete it too, like Overlordnat and others (as it's the noun, attributively). - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep sense 1 (suitable for children and adults) per WT:LEMMING: in MW, dictionary.com, oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, Macmillan. And without that, "family film" could be a film featuring family; it is not clear that it means suitable for the whole family, both children and adults. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep sense 1 on the basis of Lexico/Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005 edition. I commented before without voting. It's high time this was wrapped up. DonnanZ (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- The ratio of Keeps to Deletes is 3:3 and this has been discussed for long enough, so RFD-Kept. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- (3:3, the nominator should be taken into account as well @Overlordnat1. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC))
- Fixed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- (3:3, the nominator should be taken into account as well @Overlordnat1. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC))