Talk:must-see
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Canonicalization in topic RFD discussion: October 2019
The following information passed a request 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.
Not an adjective. Canonicalization (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- "The most must-see..." can be found in GBooks. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been used adjectivally prior to being a noun with a plural. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Equinox: All right, I consider that sufficient proof of adjectivity and can retract my nomination. But it should imo be mentioned in the entry (
{{en-adj|-|sup=most must-see}}doesn't work, though). Moreover, it sounds nonstandard/clumsy, doesn't it? - As for uses such as "a must-see movie" or "a must-see attraction", I don't consider them as adjectival as much as attributive, and I don't see that they warrant an adjective section. (However, if there weren't the nominal and superlative uses, by my token we shouldn't have an entry, which would be suboptimal.) Canonicalization (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- There are also a few Google Books hits for “more must-see than” (“the 2000 conventions will be more Must-See than ever”) and “as must-see as” (“The unique museum shops are almost as must-see as the collections”). --Lambiam 11:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Equinox: All right, I consider that sufficient proof of adjectivity and can retract my nomination. But it should imo be mentioned in the entry (
- Frankly I think there's an "elephant in the room" insofar as we put lots of effort into choosing the X, Xer, Xest forms of sometimes very obscure adjectives, but we don't have any real concrete way to decide which everyday adjectives are comparable and which are not. (Can you be "more main"?) Sorry to hijack, not sorry. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I sometimes feel that explicitly listing the "more/most ~" forms for rarely or marginally comparable adjectives makes too much of a deal of it. I wouldn't be wholly sorry to see the "more/most ~" inflections go altogether, in all cases. Mihia (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree considering that any comparable adjective can use more/most even if they have -er/-est forms. -Mike (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I sometimes feel that explicitly listing the "more/most ~" forms for rarely or marginally comparable adjectives makes too much of a deal of it. I wouldn't be wholly sorry to see the "more/most ~" inflections go altogether, in all cases. Mihia (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly I think there's an "elephant in the room" insofar as we put lots of effort into choosing the X, Xer, Xest forms of sometimes very obscure adjectives, but we don't have any real concrete way to decide which everyday adjectives are comparable and which are not. (Can you be "more main"?) Sorry to hijack, not sorry. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. It IS an adjective as well as a noun (reference added). BTW, there is a common misconception that adjectives MUST be comparable. That is a fallacy. DonnanZ (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I think that people may also rightly look for comparative forms in these cases because they may be evidence of adjectivity if they do exist. Mihia (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept, has been proved to be an adjective. Canonicalization (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)