The example in the article is Oh no! All this seaweed and shit is getting all over me! - well obviously you need the 'and' in there to make it grammatical in the same way that you'd say I have a cat and a dog, that doesn't mean that and a dog is an idiomatic phrase, does it? Delete, Mglovesfun 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not so fast. What about "to get hectic and shit"? (Taken from COCA, which has 278 hits for "and shit"). It seems a bit weird grammatically, being a noun ending a sequence of adjectives. It is a construction into which the others would fit. This is not an isolated example. How does that fit into our entry at shit?
It seems strange that "shit" and "crap" can fit in the same grammatical slot as "whatever" and "whatnot".
Relatedly, what is the analysis of and all in "Sure they have a million entries and all, but they aren't a real dictionary."? DCDuringTALK 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps relatedly, how come we have and so on but not so on? (And I've heard people mocking the yoof appending "'n' shit" to things. Never a properly pronounced and.) Equinox◑ 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see and shit, and stuff, and crap created, just like et cetera and and so on. You can't say "and miscellaneous items", can you? Even now I am not sure what they mean exactly; they do not seem to be exactly synonymous to "et cetera". It seems they are sometimes used as a generic intensifier without necessarily referring to any cetera. --Dan Polansky 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You could say "and miscellaneous items", but it would sound bureaucratic. Indeed there is often no referent. I'm not sure it's exactly an intensifier, though. "Whatnot", "stuff", "whatever", "all", "so on", and even "crap" convey various speaker attitudes different from "shit", possibly about the item(s) before the "and", but possibly about the situation or life in general. (Yoofs are notorious for the varied 'tudes they cop.) DCDuringTALK 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete, crap and shit can both mean (slang) unnamed items, objects or other things. et and cetera aren't English words on their own, and as Equinox points out, so on is never used without and to mean the same thing. Or if it is, I can't think of a single example. Ergo and shit + and crap are unidiomatic (conjunction + noun) and should go. Still, is there a consensus here that anyone can make out? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I dispute that this is SoP without some major extensions of the meanings of shit. This is used to end sequences of a few kinds of parts of speech, not just of nouns (and pronouns and proper nouns?). I have seen it end sequences of adjectives and pure verbs (not just gerundial nouns or infinitives). (I have not yet seen in end sequences of adverbs.} I would not normally expect a noun to be used to end such a sequence. So shit#Adjective, shit#Verb, and possibly shit#Adverb should all have senses corresponding to sense 4 of shit#Noun so that we can safely delete this as SoP. I have noted that other dictionaries explicitly define their sequence-enders to include verbs and attributes.
Other sequence-enders such as "and whatnot" and "and stuff" might merit an entry if they also are used to end sequences that are not nominal.