The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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.
The first two noun senses
- A person, territory or period that is or was formerly controlled by an outside state.
- A person from a country that controls or controlled another.
The first seems to be trying to define colony and/or an adjective sense. With the second I'm familiar with the the opposite sense, "person from a country that is or was controlled by another" (which I've just added), but not with this usage. Thryduulf 11:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The control issue seems like a red herring or, at least, a complication to be avoided. I think a "colonial" (person) is just an inhabitant of a colony. A colonist I think of as the first generation of colonials (not born in the colony). I don't think of "colonial" as including the native peoples, though interbreeding and assimilation create gray areas. There are also "colonials" that are objects by, for, or in the style of the "colonials" (people). —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).
- Isn't that one of those put-downs that depends for its humorous or other effect on being counter-factual? I am personally disinclined to credit humor, irony, insults, and poetry in trying to get at basic meaning. And can we really capture those kinds of twists of the basic meanings? DCDuring TALK 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was not able to find any support for either sense, checking available dictionaries and trying various searches on b.g.c. I suspect the author was simply confused. -- Visviva 13:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)