Talk:pass
Swedish
Isn't pass, Swedish eymology 3, an interjection? –dMoberg 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it both? \Mike 11:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've never used it, or heard it being used, as a noun. –dMoberg 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I can't find any attestation of it right now, so it could be that we'd have to remove that. (Doubt a WT:RFV will do much good for a Swedish term, though... ;) \Mike 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've never used it, or heard it being used, as a noun. –dMoberg 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
RFV discussion: November 2016–July 2017
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (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.
Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To come and go in and out of consciousness." I have no particular reason to doubt this, but it would be nice to verify. After all, a sentence like "After the accident, he passed in the back of the ambulance" just sounds odd.
I have no idea what to search for to check this... This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder whether someone mistook frequentative use of the present participle of pass for this definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- BTW: What's with the label "heading" that occurs a few times in pass#Verb definitions? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The entry pipe is entirely built of these weird "heading" labels! Equinox ◑ 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- This diff by User:ReidAA in December 2014 is one that introduced "heading" as second argument of
{{lb}}. There seem to be some 60 entries with this. I wonder whether something in{{lb}}has changed. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)- No, I think it's just intended to mark a definition as a heading of several subdefinitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've never liked it. It doesn't belong in
{{lb}}, IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've never liked it. It doesn't belong in
- No, I think it's just intended to mark a definition as a heading of several subdefinitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- This diff by User:ReidAA in December 2014 is one that introduced "heading" as second argument of
- The entry pipe is entirely built of these weird "heading" labels! Equinox ◑ 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Kiwima Really? Two of those cites are clearly for pass out, not "pass". And the first use of "pass" in the Buddhist one is def 2.1 ("To change from one state to another"). I'm prepared to believe you about the second use, because I can't work out what "passing out of the mere consciousness of the infinity of space" means, but that still leaves two required citations. This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that is what the creator of the definition intended, and if you accept this definition, then pass out is just a special case of this meaning. I added a couple more quotes. It is clearly a change in state or status, which is why I moved the definition to under that heading. I am comfortable with considering it a case of 2.1, although the example for that definition made me think that that sense was including a connotation of progression, which this does not have. Kiwima (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly the first cite - "mental states, into and out of which we are perpetually passing" - is a clear case of 2.1; and "special consciousnesses have passed over into the one ... background-consciousness" does not suggest moving into and out of consciousness to me - instead it seems to be talking about different levels of consciousness (awareness). So I would still want to see this definition removed in favour of 2.1 and pass out. This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that is what the creator of the definition intended, and if you accept this definition, then pass out is just a special case of this meaning. I added a couple more quotes. It is clearly a change in state or status, which is why I moved the definition to under that heading. I am comfortable with considering it a case of 2.1, although the example for that definition made me think that that sense was including a connotation of progression, which this does not have. Kiwima (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
RFV-resolved - wording changed to something not specific to consciousness. Kiwima (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Sadly passed (wind)
When people use 'passed' without an objective or adverb ('Sadly we have to announce that our friend Nick has passed'), it always sounds for half a second as if they mean 'passed wind'. If people mean 'passed away', they should say it to avoid this unseemliness. Burraron (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/let+pass --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
RFC discussion: February 2022
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.
Should be ==Chinese==, and other formatting issues. @Justinrleung, RcAlex36 —Fish bowl (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fish bowl:
Done — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 07:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Present and be accepted as
Is it definitionally necessary to "present oneself as and be accepted by others as" a member of whatever group? When e.g. a light-skinned Black person (who is merely existing and not presenting themself as anything) is read by others as white, is that passing or is it not? When passing privilege is discussed in the context of race, I see it applied even to e.g. Black people who merely exist while light-skinned, and when it is discussed in the context of trans people, I see definitions phrasing it as being about being "perceived as cisgender" without requirement that the people must also claim to be cis. I note this sense was initially worded differently, though not as good as the current just-improved wording, but was changed in February 2022 to reintroduce the requirement to present as, which I had actually removed in February 2018...but by now I'm sufficiently unsure whether presenting is required that I'm not just boldly re-removing it yet. - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)