Talk:systems
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.
Rfv-sense: adjective. Attributive use of the noun? I can’t imagine someone saying “this programming is systems” in the same way one can say “this code is object-oriented”. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would say it's purely a noun modifier, although it can be incorporated into adjectives such as systems-related. Can it be moved to system, or delete the adjective heading and place under the noun plural entry? Donnanz (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just put "sometimes attributive" on the existing plural noun. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the right way to handle it. Actually, the singular could also be used attributively, but there's a long, long, long list of nouns for which this is true. -- · (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well all English nouns can be used attributively, with no exceptions! So all of Category:English nouns plus the ones we don't have yet. PS would not even bother with a context label, even though attributive use of plurals of nouns is pretty rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the right way to handle it. Actually, the singular could also be used attributively, but there's a long, long, long list of nouns for which this is true. -- · (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just put "sometimes attributive" on the existing plural noun. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the context label is a good idea—it seems surprising that English speakers typically say "systems engineer" and "systems programming" rather than "system engineer" and "system programming". As Renard Migrant pointed out, attributive use of plural nouns is unusual—compare "computer engineer"/"*computers engineer" and "network programming"/"*networks programming". I think it is worthwhile to point out this unusual usage of "systems". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like usage notes to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with that too—just as long as we point it out somehow. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've put a usage note in the lemma entry (system) with another note in the plural directing people to it (but I think it's more likely people will look up the singular, even if they find a plural use like "ssytems engineer", because even language-learners learn early on about pluralization and that dictionaries lemmatize singulars). - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with that too—just as long as we point it out somehow. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like usage notes to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the context label is a good idea—it seems surprising that English speakers typically say "systems engineer" and "systems programming" rather than "system engineer" and "system programming". As Renard Migrant pointed out, attributive use of plural nouns is unusual—compare "computer engineer"/"*computers engineer" and "network programming"/"*networks programming". I think it is worthwhile to point out this unusual usage of "systems". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- RFV-failed as an adjective. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)