Talk:the devil

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:the devil. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:the devil, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:the devil in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:the devil you have here. The definition of the word Talk:the devil will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:the devil, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

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.


why the Devil

SoP: why the devil. Well, actually, Devil, which needs another sense if this is attested with this case.—msh210 18:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Worth comparing: what the Devil, what on Earth, who the Devil (are you?), who on Earth, where the Devil, where on Earth, what in Hell, what in God's name, where in Hell, who in God's name... I personally think we don't need to "collect the set" of these. Equinox 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ridiculously weak keep, they do seem to be idiomatic, but native speakers tend to 'make these up as they go' and so the number of these that are attestable must be at least 100... and yet the 'idiomatic' point seems to stand, even though I'd rather it didn't. Mglovesfun 21:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
You could go even further. who the bloody hell are you (bloody hell); what in God's sweet name has been going on? To add these as phrases based on who and what cannot be anything but a mistake. Equinox 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
It’s very idiomatic. Keep. It is not SoP because, as SoP, it makes no grammatical sense. It seems to need "in the name of" in order to be made grammatical, yet it’s used without that. —Stephen 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is some kind of grammar to these. It does seem as if invective has its own grammar. If we could figure out how to do that justice, it would be possible to dispense with the hundreds of otherwise ungrammatical examples of invective. Isn't there a journal called w:Maledicta? DCDuring TALK 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Move to the Devil per the fuck. DAVilla 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Move per DAVilla. It's an adequate home to place some usage examples or quotations to capture searches and present material that might overburden Devil or devil. "X the Devil" wouldn't help at all. (Keeping per Stephen might better reflect WT:CFI, though.) DCDuring TALK 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Move per DAVilla.msh210 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Moved per most recent votes. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply