Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:precedent. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:precedent, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:precedent in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:precedent you have here. The definition of the word Talk:precedent will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:precedent, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
A third argument may be derived from the precedent.
The previous version.
Both of these seem to me to be "fused-head" constructions of the adjective with different context-dependent nouns understood. They are very much like "rare" in:
"Did want dark or light meat?" / "I'll have the dark."
We have the "preceding" sense of precedent in the entry. It is possible that the fifth sense ("an earlier draft of a document") may suffer from the same defect. DCDuringTALK18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dunno about the second one, can it be cited? Something like this is a precedent of my essay/this is a precedent of the song? As for the first one, it's an adjective, ergo delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Very many adjectives can be used in plural in fused-head constructions to refer to a wide range of things, known from context, so I don't think that can be a definitive test. For example, color adjectives can be used in the plural to refer to, say, game pieces. OTOH, many adjectives can't be readily pluralized and even the color ones may be used in agreement with a plural verb: "The red (one|ones) is|are more attractive."
We wouldn't want agreeable and disagreeable to be defined as nouns because of citations like this:
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
"We wouldn't want agreeable and disagreeable to be defined as nouns because of citations like this." Well, I would! See e.g. nouns at unanswerable and married. If we don't do this, then there seems to be no way we can have an entry for the (attestable) plural, as what else would its part of speech be? Equinox◑11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
What is a fused-head construction? In any case, the first nominated definition’s usex seems to be the adjective precedent with the noun argument implied, so I’ll go with delete.
@Ungoliant: In English, determiners, quantifiers and adjectives can be used as nominals without an explicit noun or pronoun.
"Would you like a rare piece or a well-done one?" "I'd like the rare (one)."
"We have sets of four glasses and of six (glasses)."
"Where are the sausages?" "I bought some (sausages) yesterday."
I don't think that there is any point in assigning the underlined terms acquire a new PoS. The deletion of the terms in parentheses seems like a part of normal grammar. DCDuringTALK13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The OED has it: "the precedent: the aforementioned; that which has just been said or written. Obs." It's not a use of the adjective, it comes from a plural form (also obsolete) which referred to "foregoing facts or statements". Ƿidsiþ17:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
