Talk:subtle

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.

Extra senses. I'm having difficulty seeing how there is more than one general sense of this word - but certainly not four (in English.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would merge senses 3 and 4, but they are clearly distinct from definitions 1 and 2. The sense(s) at the end are less common in modern English, but pertain to cunning or skillful craft. Consider:

• William Shakespeare, Cymbeline, act iii scene 3

  We are beastly, subtle as the fox for prey.

--EncycloPetey 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, help me out here; how is that a different sense? That is another aspect of the primary definition that shouldn't be split out as if it were something unique. --Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's definition 3/4 "cunning, crafty", which is different from the usual meaning of (deprecated template usage) subtle. "Hard to discern" is not the same as "skillful, with art". The two senses will have completely different synonyms, and that's another reason to have them as separate senses. A "subtle fox" is a "clever fox", but a "subtle noise" is not a "clever noise". --EncycloPetey 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. There really do seem to be three senses here, although not divided along the lines that were given originally. A skillful person may create a cleverly contrived problem. Both the person and the problem can the be described as "subtle", but only using two entirely different senses of the word. So, I'd say we have these senses:

1. Hard to grasp; not obvious or easily understood; barely noticeable
2. (of a problem, idea, or object) cleverly contrived; insidious
3. (of a person or animal) skillful; cunning

Rod (A. Smith) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm.. I'm not convinced that "cleverly contrived" and "insidious" can be combined. A cleverly contrived dish is meant "to demonstrate skill", not to "entrap or produce harm". The insidious sense is separate from the ones I've discussed, and I can provide several Shakespeare quotes to support that sense, as it seems to be the one most common in his works:

• William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Richard the Third, act iv, scene 4

  Thy age confirmed, proud, subtle, bloody, treacherous.

This is clearly a negative connotation, which is not present in your third sense above, and should not be.

• William Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor, act iii, scene 1

  Am I politic? Am I subtle? Am I a Machiavel?

Again, a strongly negative connotation.

• William Shakespeare, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, act iv, scene 2

  Thou subtle, perjured, false, disloyal man!

All of these quotes show a negative sense, which none of your three definitions has or should have. The "insidious" sense (scheming, manipulating) ought to remain separate as a negative one. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. You're right. So there are four senses after all, but again not broken down quite like the original entry, since that combined the skillful (person) sense with the cleverly contrived (thing) sense. Rod (A. Smith) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply