Talk:brûlée

Okay I'm chiefly a wikipedian, but I don't know why a usage note is not in order, especially if the reverted original allows the misimpression it's a normal adjective interchangeable with the normal English word. Original note was "From the French feminine adjective in "crème brûlée" and used almost exclusively therein." Chris Rodgers 06:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I tend to agree - possibly a miss-click on the [rollback] button? It looked like it was correctly stated on the definition line, too. --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note concerned an English word. The only word described on the page brûlée is French. In French, brûlée is a perfectly ordinary past participle/adjective and is in common use, and not in any way connected to crème brûlée. A few cases that come to mind are: brûlée en crépitant (sputtered); brûlée en dedans (backfired); brûlée (sunburnt); politique de la terre brûlée (scorched earth policy); tête brûlée (daredevil); and brûlée entièrement (burnt down, burnt off, burnt up). I can come up with many, many more on a second’s notice.

Before you can add usage notes to an English word, first you have to have the English word. Right now, all you have is a French word. —Stephen 07:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems hard to miss that this page resides on en.wiktionary.org and not fr.wiktionary.org, suggesting its subject is the word's use in English rather than French. The category listing at bottom does not read "French words..." but English words, irrespective of origin. All you say is très à propos for the French site, but very misleading here, making the original context/usage note for purposes of this language necessary. For that reason I've restored it. 69.145.82.2 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you never got the memo. This is "All words in all languages" so things that pertain the English words must be under an ==English== heading. --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)