Talk:surprise

Attributive means separate sense?

Is really the fact that the noun surprise can be used attributively something to warrant a separate definition? The third noun def could perhaps also be merged into the other two?--sanna 09:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the third definition should remain separate, because a feeling of surprise will often be translated differently from a surprising event. Kappa 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But the adjective definition ("unexpected") for a noun sense is poor. If we change it to "something unexpected" then it is literally the same as sense 1. I would prefer to delete. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

surprise

Rfv-sense: the sole adjective sense 'unexpected'. Is this an adjectival at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of phrases that take the form "a surprise NOUN". Purplebackpack89 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Invalid argument: same goes for "tractor" (tractor parts, tractor driver) but that's not an adjective. "Surprise" fails many of the typical tests for adjectivity: you can't have "more/most/very/somewhat surprise"; you can say "surprise party" but not "the party was surprise"; and so on. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is rfv (though I'm not sure why it isn't at rfd), so it's all about usage, not arguments. At any rate, the usage mentioned doesn't establish adjectivity for the reasons mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make them adjectives: you don't say "that inspection was more surprise than the last one", you say, "that inspection was more of a surprise than the last one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz It is at RfV because RfD tends to be a fact-free zone and facts could in principle show surprise to behave like a true adjective. We actually have criteria for "true adjective" use, unlike the situation for multi-word entries. The burden of proof is on those with insight into some type of true adjective use to demonstrate such use. The longer minimum time period before removal of items is useful to give advocates more of a chance. There is a substantial bias toward deleting these because linguistically naive contributors are inclined to take attributive use of a noun as an indication that the noun is also an adjective. A weakness of the process is that we rarely add examples of the noun in attributive use as usage examples for the noun definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are we sure it is a good idea to single out one particular sense that arises in attributive use, as the definition "unexpected" in this case? For example, in the surprise element (aka the element of surprise) the element is not unexpected, it is a desired and planned-for feeling of surprise, which may indeed be expected, as in those attending a horror movie. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be planned and expected in some way (as in expect the unexpected), but there's something unexpected about it for the viewer, otherwise it wouldn't provoke the "feeling of surprise". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Attestation is the key. Nouns can't be qualified by adverbs such as "very surprise" "more surprise" "the most surprise". I wasn't the tagger it was tagged by Hamaryns in December 2013. Not really relevant because we go on the merits of the entry, not who tagged it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There are thousands of citations for google books:"very surprise" and google books:"so surprise". I've found nothing yet (scannos for "very surprised" mainly) but I have looked. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–June 2018

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

surprise

Sense 2: "(attributive) Unexpected". --Per utramque cavernam 17:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I would keep it as it is. Surprise is not an adjective, but can be used attributively. Other examples are "a surprise visit" and "a surprise present" DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per Donnanz: this is attributive use...of sense 1. It's not a separate sense; that's the nature of attributive use. "Her visit came as a suprise; it was a suprise visit." "The attack was a suprise; it was a suprise attack." "The enemy's artillery fired a shell at us; we were hit by their artillery shell." Notice we don't have a separate sense at "artillery" for "attributive: fired by artillery". - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, I said "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And your logic explained why it's not a separate sense. Delete per Donnanz. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A question though: what should we do with the translation table pertaining to that sense? I think it's pointless but I dunno. Per utramque cavernam 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me to just drop the table--a number of those words, especially in the Germanic/Scandinavian sphere, use that form of compounding as a normal construct that isn't really a special, ad hoc affix, so designating them in a translation table seems needless. And some of them may also belong in the translation table for sense 1, depending on the language. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DCDuring and I have talked about the question of what to do with translations of "attributive" uses of nouns (especially ones that are adjectives in other languages) from time to time. One simple idea is to put the translations in the table for the relevant noun sense and {{qualifier}} them, like in cork. Another idea is to have a separate table for attributive use, as in brass. (Another approach, which is less helpful but more common at the moment, is to omit such translations entirely.) - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My point is that showing attributive usage is useful to readers in cases where there is no adjective. IMO the nomination is rather silly. DonnanZ (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it:

1. For any English speaker (say, EN-3 and up) decoding or encoding in English such adjective sections are not at all useful

2. For an English speaker wanting to go from an English word to an FL translation in a given language, then a translation table indicating how the FL delivers the meaning might be useful for encoding into the FL, if it were complete or at least handled many common cases. The adjective section is not of any use for decoding because that job is undertaken by the FL entry for the word.

3. For an FL speaker seeking to decode an English expression using a noun attributively, I don't see how the adjective section is much help that could not delivered by using {{label|en|often used attributively}} in the noun definition. For an FL speaker seeking to find how to express a thought in which attributive use of a noun is normal English usage, finding the English noun should be all that is necessary, if the user were not able to use the gloss in the entry for the word appropriate in the FL.

I suppose a hard case is one in which the most natural translation of an SOP multi-word expression in one language is an SoP multi-word expression in the other language. This seems to bring us up against a combinatorial explosion of the number of entries potentially required. DCDuring (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

to surprise information from a prisoner, to surprise a witness into telling the truth

Are such examples to be mentioned here or rather in the respective prepositions? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"to surprise a witness into telling the truth" could be added here, I suppose. "to surprise information from a prisoner" is not something I would say—are there native speakers who use the word that way? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the expression because it's not clear to me what it means. Isn't it just sense 1 (To cause (someone) to feel unusually alarmed), or maybe just sense 6? Dbfirs 09:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger, Dbfirs: source: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/surprise --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

drop surprise

Frank Ocean Drops Surprise New Single “In My Room” What's the meaning of surprise here? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is the main sense ("Something unexpected") being used attributively to describe "single". The sentence is made confusing by the headlinese; a more standard way to say it would be "Frank Ocean has dropped a surprise new single called 'In My Room'."

It's an interesting example though, because some (most?) linguists say that English nouns can't modify other nouns and that apparent examples of this are actually compounds. But here the word "new" is in between "surprise" and "single", so under that analysis I think this would be evidence of an adjective sense of "surprise". —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

surprise-drop

Kendrick Lamar just surprise-dropped his new album --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–October 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

surprise

Rfv-sense: A dish covered with a crust of raised pastry, but with no other contents Roger the Rodger (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)