Talk:check

Return to "check" page.

Hmm . . . this raises an issue that has doubtless come up before. Just what order do we use for related terms, particularly when there are many of them?

My original list was mostly grouped by sense, e.g., checkbook was near "bounce a check" -- or at least I meant it to be. Frankly, I can't discern any order in the new arrangement, but I'm sure there is one.

Possible answers:

  1. It doesn't matter
  2. Group by meaning, somewhat subjectively
  3. Use alphabetical order

It's rather like organizing ones CD collection . . . alpha by artist? By genre/sub-genre/sub-sub-genre? by affinity? just throw 'em on the shelf?

-dmh 07:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I always arrange related terms by a type of alphabetical order but preffering single words and preferring terms which begin with the exact form taken by the entry:
worda
wordb
wordc
aword
bword
cword
word a
word b
word c
a word
b word
c word
Also if it's clear which sense a term is related to (or if I've read the etymology), I'll put a 4th level "related" section under that sense just before the translations. If I can't tell then I put a 3rd level "related" section as the last section in the particular language. &mdash Hippietrail 07:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have a disagreement here. The arrangement you give is perfectly sensible, but I wouldn't have guessed it just by looking. My poor brain only got as far as "Hmm . . . not alphabetical . . . checkbook is completely separate from "bounce a check" . . . um, I give up."
In any case, I don't see this as a major issue. Much more important to get the terms in there in the first place. I expect that this will be yet another case of early experimentation followed by consensus and standardization. I don't have a strong opinion in this case. I'm glad to go along with whatever consensus emerges and I'm not bothered if anyone wants to reorder any of the "related terms" lists in order to reach said consensus. basketball would be another good place -- that list will get longer, as well.
Finally, the general pattern of fourth-level subheads where applicable and third-level as a default is a good one IMHO, applicable to related terms, synonyms, alternate spellings, translations, and probably other categories. -dmh 15:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

check if vs. check whetherEdit

Are both versions possible? If so, what is the difference between the two? When would each be used - do you have any examples? I have an example from the computer field: check if a field is empty or check whether a field is empty? Thanks from a non-native English speaker! Bernburgerin 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, both are possible, but check whether sounds more formal and erudite, while check if sounds informal and colloquial. The use of check if can sometimes be ambiguous, and it could mean check whether OR if such-and-such is true, then put a check mark. Check whether is unambiguous. —Stephen 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section redlinkEdit

The etymology section links to a page that has been deleted, and it doesn't make very much sense without that page, we either need to undo the delete or give a longer explanation in this word's entry.

Are you referring to چک? If so, that wasn’t deleted, it was misspelled. —Stephen 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


etymology of checkEdit

What was the path by which the Persian word for check entered English, especially with the current meaning, as in checking account. When did the Persian word assume that meaning? Most sources show a flow from Anglo-Norman through Middle English, with the bank check sense not much earlier that 1700. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The chess connection may be somewhat earlier (see w:History of Chess). Chess apparently reached Europe from two directions, and came to be associated etymologically with the Persian shah, "king" (see checkmate). See also "check" and "cheque" at etymonline. Pingku 14:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


interjectionEdit

We should add an interjection sense for check. Used when ticking this off in the checklist in our head

  1. Swimsuit? Check. Goggles? Check. Sun hat? Check. Sunblock? Check. Beach shoes? Check. OK, I'm all ready for my beach holiday!

--Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not ready, you forgot your happy face! :D 81.68.255.36 21:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

English verb sense 5 & 6Edit

Is 6 not the same as 5? 81.68.255.36 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure about this. It seems that if you check your coat in (sense 5) then you are expecting someone to look after it while you do something (e.g. attend a concert) and then to collect it from the same place when you've finished. If you check your bags before a flight (in British English I'd actually suggest it should be check in) then you are expecting someone to look after them while they transport them (and you) to somewhere else, where you will retrieve them afterwards. I'm not certain whether that's enough for a separate sense or not - more opinions needed! Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
For me (an American), they are distinct but related senses. I would not use "check in" bags at an airport, generally, just "check" bags. --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 08:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"At check"Edit

I'm not sure what this phrase means, but it's usage does not seem to be mentioned here. I found it in James Joyce's book Dubliners, in the first short story, "The Sisters". It seems to mean something like "surprised." --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 08:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, it might refer to being "checked" as in stopped from something. --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 08:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Last modified on 13 April 2014, at 17:22