Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:for cryin' out loud. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:for cryin' out loud, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:for cryin' out loud in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:for cryin' out loud you have here. The definition of the word Talk:for cryin' out loud will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:for cryin' out loud, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Any -ing word can be written as -in'. I don't see any need for these to have separate entries, any more than there is a need for every word beginning with "h" to have a separate entry with the "h" dropped, for instance. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Very strong keep, from here all the way to the moon (hey I invented my own idiom). Anything that isn't SOP and is attested should be included (plus this is a very common alternative form after all, and this form is actually used most of the time in oral speech when this idiom is said). for cryin' out loud does not equal the sum of for + cryin' + out + loud. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
There are 16 permutations just of "for/fer" + "crying/cryin'" + "out/oot" + "loud/lood" ("oot" and "lood" being dialect spellings). Forgive me if I don't check every one, but many are attestable. Would you have separate entries for all? Mihia (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
That 8,000 figure is probably one of Google's Large Random Numbers™. No one, as far as I have been able to ascertain, understands how these are generated or what they mean. Retrievable hits run out at about 170 for me. Hits verifiable by looking at the excerpt (i.e. "for cryin' out loud" visible in the excerpt) run out at about 70. 109.146.103.23619:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the same attrition applies to hits for the fully spelled-out version, then the high proportion of examples of the variation remains the same. bd2412T13:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Keep: We keep for crying out loud as idiomatic and no CFI-based rationale for deleting this attested form was stated. The applied principle is not that eye dialect should be excluded; Category:English eye dialect has over 1600 entries. The definition line "Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud" is fine. The entry is not hugely useful, but so are many of our -ness entries, un- entries and the like. As for the allegged permutations, e.g. google books:"for crying out lood" does not find anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I didn't claim that all permutations exist in Google Books, just that "many are attestable", which I stand by. I do not believe that pointing to one example with no Google Books hits undermines the main point, which is that if separate entries are allowed for all permutations of variant and dialect spellings within phrases then these entries will proliferate beyond what is sensible. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think there would be problems with stipulating that words or expressions should not be included just because they are insufficiently common. Obviously there are many uncommon entries that we want to include. I think there is an issue with the silliness per se of including all these permutations, irrespective of whether they are common or rare. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply