Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:high-quality. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:high-quality, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:high-quality in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:high-quality you have here. The definition of the word Talk:high-quality will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:high-quality, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
That's a "Word Count Tool". I asked it about A high-quality, never-been-married, fully marriage-eligible bachelor. and was told "6".—msh210℠ (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
In fairness Widsith, I think you're well capable of thinking for yourself. Just because the OED says anything with a hyphen in is a single word, you don't have to believe them. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstand me – the OED doesn't say anything on the subject one way or another. But it's a well-established convention in journalism and publishing that two (or more) words linked with a hyphen are counted as single words. Ƿidsiþ18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes counted as a single word, that's mathematics. Presumably in terms of journalism 5/6 is a single word too, no? As it contains no spaces. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
By the expansive logic often expressed here, this entry might be required because the trio low-quality, average-quality, and high-quality is strongly preferred over other ways of expressing the same notion at least in some context. For example, low-grade, medium-grade, and high-grade are not normally applied to most consumer goods.
But I don't see how someone trying to prepare a speech or write something could actually find the appropriate entry in English Wiktionary. If someone could explain that, I might accept such entries, as we seem to have become a translating dictionary rather than a monolingual one. In a translating dictionary, preferred collocations, even though completely transparent and trivial from the point-of-view of a decoder, would seem to be need to be included provided they are findable.
Well, for example I am currently reading Spenser and he never refers to anything as ‘high-quality’. So when did this word start being used? In what contexts? This is what a good dictionary shows. ((deprecated template usage)high-quality is in the OED, by the way, and their first citation is not until 1910.) Ƿidsiþ17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Widsith: To which comment were you directing the comment immediately above?
The argument made would apply to any arbitrary sequence of terms. For example, preferred sound sequences could change so free combinations of word might change in relative frequency, ie not be 100% free. DCDuringTALK18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence. I thought you were originally asking what the value of this entry is, and I was giving you some reasons why it might be valuable. At any rate there are plenty of things I would like to know about this term, and I expect a dictionary to tell me. The OED includes it, so why do we think it's beneath us exactly? Ƿidsiþ18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keep as it fits our generally inclusionist line and it is enough of a word for OED. Following the same type of argumentation as was used with "bath towel" above (bath towel is not a towel to wipe the bath), "high quality" should be kept, because it's not the quality of being tall. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
