Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal verbs in English


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wiktionary will absolutely not want this. Their criteria are very stringent - I know because I tried to move some stuff over to them a few months back and got soundly rejected. Consensus is deletion. I will userfy if anyone wants a copy for the attempt though. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Animal verbs in English

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just a collection of terms that might appear in a dictionary, though an odd one. It groups totally unrelated types of words – slang ("aardvark"), words derived from animal names ("beaver") and coincidences of spelling ("bat", "bear"). If it means to include all such it is woefully incomplete, while some words are just repeated (those are not really separate meanings of "bear"). And it is entirely original research, being sourced mostly to google translations. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Moving response from the talk page on the article to this page

In relation to the concern that this is a “dictionary page", rest assured that it is not; it is a list page.

According to Wikipedia, A dictionary is a collection of words in one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically (or by radical and stroke for ideographic languages), which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, phonetics, pronunciations, translation, etc.[1] or a book of words in one language with their equivalents in another, sometimes known as a lexicon.[1] It is a lexicographical product which shows inter-relationships among the data.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary

By contrast, again according to Wikipedia, a list is any enumeration of a set of items.

This entry does not include the characteristics of dictionary collections, but it does fit within the definition of a list.

In addition, one can find many lists on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List

Lists related to the animal verbs topic include the following:

List of animal sounds - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_sounds

Lists of animals - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animals

List of animal names – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_names

List of English animal nouns – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_animal_nouns

List of domesticated animals - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_American_and_British_English

List of domesticated animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

We feel that the present page is of exactly similar form to these list pages and there is no reason to delete it.

Moreover, it is not an etymology page, and does not claim that the verb uses derive from the same etymology as the noun uses.

It is simply a list of animal names that are used as verbs, with examples.

CWTyler (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)(EditExpress (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC))

John Blackburne, it does not appear that you read the opening paragraph where we explain what kind of list this is:
 * Response to John Blackburne

“This is a compendium of animal names (i.e., nouns) that are also used as verbs in the English language. The list includes verbal usages that relate directly and indirectly to the noun’s meaning, analogies and unrelated verbal definitions, and is subdivided into common categories of vertebrate animals, together with a category of invertebrates.”

This kind of list is a form of noun verb pairing that frequently comes up in language training, particularly in K-12 education and in learning sign language. Our list does not fulfill the requirements of dictionary entries, and is not intended to do so. It has value in terms of an encyclopedia because it is a collection of a set of items in the manner of many lists on Wikipedia that compile information in a way that is not a part of a dictionary’s function. The list of animal sounds and lists of domesticated animal are two examples.

So I guess the appropriate question is why would anyone care about this list? As noted above, these kinds of pairings are a part of common human communication and we learn them as we learn language. They help us see some of the nuances of how we use words and learn to use words from a young age. For example, Linda Sue Park’s book Yaks Yak: Animal Word Pairs was written for 4-7 year olds. This book, by the way, was awarded the Amazon Best Children’s Books of the Year: NonFiction, Shelf Awareness Best of 2016. The book’s blurb reads “Yaks Yak presents animals acting out the verbs made from their names.” To further speak about whether or not the page is more appropriate for a dictionary, according to Wikipedia’s encylopedia page: “Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title.[3][4][5][6] … an encyclopedia article is typically not limited to simple definitions, and is not limited to defining an individual word, but provides a more extensive meaning for a subject or discipline. This is precisely what the “Animal verbs in English” article provides. It offers factual information about the subject named in the article’s title and, unlike a dictionary it does not detail the linguistic information about the words. We would be happy to re-title the entry “List of animal verbs” and would like to recommend deleting the addition of “in English,” which is inconsistent with all comparable Wikipedia pages.

Suffice it to say that our example sentences are not dictionary definitions but rather show how some words are used experientially. English speakers do in fact use the names (nouns) as verbs, and it isn’t “original research” to say this since we can all read the animal names and envisage the animals/nouns. In other words, it is incorrect to label this contribution as original research, despite the warning someone placed on the article. It is a LIST and it makes no argument about the information it presents in any kind of original sense. The list draws no conclusions. It simply delineates information showing how the English language works that is pretty universally accepted. Finally, we used Google translation citations because it offers example sentences showing how the word is used when you ask the software to translate an English word. We could have crafted our own “original” sentences but used Google translation as a well-established source, together with other sources when Google translate did not have an example sentence. I find it extraordinary and immensely disappointing that Wikipedia editors think this article is of so little value that they have the temerity to propose deleting it on spurious grounds. There is nothing controversial in it and it certainly adds to the stockpile of information because it brings together information related to our human communication experience, albeit in a somewhat limited fashion. You won’t find this list in any dictionary. Whereas it isn’t original, it is a topic of broad interest as exemplified by the five non-Wikipedia websites we came across discussing this specific issue, although none of them have more than about 15 examples.(EditExpress (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I draw your attention to our policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and also our policy on lists of words. The latter is the more applicable, in particular the last sentence:
 * "Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited."
 * The point of that is, for a list of words to make a good article, there must be a reliable source or sources that discuss the list as a whole. Without that, even if individual entries are sourced, the list as a whole is subjective and original research. And no, Google translate is not a good source for anything. It is thoroughly unreliable as all machine translations are.


 * There may be content here that would work on Wiktionary, but I do not spend much time on Wiktionary so do not know exactly how it might be used, or if any of it makes sense as an article there. But it certainly does not meet the criteria here.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 07:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment As says, WP:LISTGLOSSARY requires the existence of secondary sources discussing animal-derived verbs in general. I found one paper, which includes the following discussion:

On the other hand, animal terms seem to possess very diverse meanings when used as verbs. Thus, whereas monkey means "to clown around," dog means "to chase tirelessly." However, one might claim that animal denominal verbs are RD [rule-derived] as well, since they all seem to mean "to behave like X," where X is the animal. I will present three responses to this criticism.

First, one can argue that certain subareas ofidiosyncratic categories group together in systematic ways, though in comparison with "pure" RD categories, they contain many exceptions. Thus, to fish does not mean "to act like a fish" but rather to catch fish. To bird does not mean "to act like a bird," but rather to watch birds. Now, it must be admitted that RD and ID [idiosyncratically-derived] denominals are not distinctly discrete. Rather, they appear to fall along a continuous dimension. Nonetheless, the dimension might be relevant to the creation ofdenominal verbs, and the best strategy to demon- strate this relevance would focus on the extreme ends of the continuum. The categories used in this experiment seem to be located toward the two extremes, and the results support the intuitive division.

Second, one could point to the pragmatics of lexicography to demonstrate the relative homogeneity of RD denominals. Lexicographers clearly follow pragmatic rules in writing defmitions. Rather than include every component of a word's meaning in a definition, they assume that the reader will be able to make some easy inferences, such as knowing that being a bird entails being an animal. Since lexicographers will assume that readers possess such knowledge, they will not include an explicit animal entry under bird definitions. Lexicographers therefore appear to follow Gricean maxims of communicative efficiency (Grice, 1975). A definition should include just enough information for the reader to gain a reasonable understanding of a word's meaning. If this pragmatic rule is kept in mind as one examines actual definitions of denominal verbs, one will find that almost identical definitions are provided for RD denominals, whereas strikingly different definitions are given for ID denominals. Thus, actual definitions of vehicle verbs state "To travel by x," with the X replaced by the specific vehicle being discussed. Lexicographers apparently assume that no more information is required for the reader to infer the meaning of vehicles whose names are used as verbs. Now, if animal verbs such as monkey, dog, or pig are consulted, one does not find a general definition "To behave like an X" Rather, much more specific definitions are provided, which differ from animal to animal. One can conclude, therefore, that lexicographers believe that more idiosyncratic definitions are needed for one to understand such verbs.


 * I'll let editors with more linguistic experience judge if this is a real secondary source or more of an incidental reference. FourViolas (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The point about Google Translate is that it provides a convenient distillation of both standard (and succinct) definitions and sentence examples for any word entered into it, not that its translate function is being used in any form. This list is a compilation of these standard sources, and is a topic of general interest, as any Internet search of the term "animal verbs" will reveal. CWTyler (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added secondary sources to the Animal verbs page. To elaborate, Hancock and Todd have pointed out in International English Usage that it is because the world community of English speakers is so diverse, and because the language reflects this diversity, that discussions of language use have value. In this context they refer to noun verb pairings..

In English, many everyday language uses are based on metaphor, as can be seen from a brief listing of the commonest nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs applied to people and deriving from animal names or characteristics.

Nouns ape, ass, baboon, badger, bear, beaver, bird, bitch, bulldog, canary, cat, chicken, clam, cock, cow, crow, cuckoo, dog, donkey, elephant, fox, goat, goose, gopher, guineapig, hen, hog, horse, kitten, lamb, lark, lion, louse, magpie, march hare, minx, mole, monkey, mouse, mule, ox, parrot, peacock, pig, pup(py), rabbit, rat, shark, sheep, squirrel, snake, stoolpigeon, toad, tortoise, turkey, turtle, viper, weasel, wolf, worm.

Verbs As well as many of the above nouns which can be used as verbs, the following animal attributes can occur as verbs: bark, bleat, bug, catnap, claw, ferret (out), flap, flounder, fly, gallop,gobble, growl, hare, hiss, lionise, paw, peck, pussyfoot, roar, rook, snap, snarl, snort, toady.

Others have pointed out that metaphor is only one element for consideration and, indeed, dictionaries do not cover all of the possibilities. For example, the linguist Peggy Kamuf speaks about the worm, pointing out that a dictionary cannot encompass the possibilities of how a word like worm operates as an animal and a verb. Indeed, many of the nouns on our list have more than one meaning. Kamuf notes:

“[I]solated, without any context, it might very well be an epithet, a curse, unless it is an apostrophe, an address – if one may permit oneself to address a worm or even to invoke it as a proper name, Worm. Or else, since the noun is so thoroughly wormed through with the verb – and vice versa (‘and vice versa’ says already something wormlike) – it could as well be a strange imperative, a command, or even some kind of prayer or supplication. To be sure, no dictionary is going to sanction all these possibilities, but by definition, so to speak, inventive language has never waited upon dictionary definition, on the contrary.

Kelly, by contrast, notes that, “animal terms seem to possess very diverse meanings when used as verbs and are also idiosyncratic." This is one reason a glossary does not suffice for this information. Kelly continues, "For example, “To bird does not mean "to act like a bird," but rather to watch birds”

The variety of ways in which we use language in communication is also a component educators consider and animal/verbs frequently surface in tools that aid children in learning [language arts] In addition, the topic is probed broadly. .(EditExpress (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC))


 * Comment. I suspect there could be an interesting Wikipedia article on zoosemy in word formation; see for an example of a source on exactly the topic considered here, animal verbs in English. That said, a mere list of such words and their definitions would seem to violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY, even if we eliminated the false friends. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Response to David Eppstein.

Thanks for your comment David. It looks like this is my first and last article for Wikipedia. We'll just post it elsewhere if it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards.


 * We thought our Wikipedia page matched many of the lists on Wikipedia and some deemed up to Wikipedia standards are strikingly similar to ours, as noted above.


 * As for the idea that it is subjective, suffice it to say that the comment makes me laugh out loud since we all use these words regularly when we communicate. I do research all the time and I know what something subjective and anecdotal is.


 * As for the problem of google citations, well, whereas it would be possible to use sentences from papers in google scholar or pull sentences out of well known books for the animal verb sentence examples, an approach some of the lists on Wikipedia use, it would essentially be cosmetic. Adding a more prestigious citation to make the same point is just busy work. I could have crafted original sentences since we all know what the words mean, but wikipedia "values" citations.


 * As for your suggestion to write on zoosemy, I think it would make sense if we really felt the need to have Wikipedia accept an article for some reason. We are academics but animal verbs has nothing to do with our research. We gain nothing from making the list available and chose to post here because our impulse was share it broadly. It increasingly looks like our sense of Wikipedia's mission was based on a limited understanding, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of what Wikipedia finds of value. (EditExpress (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC))

Please note that this is NOT a dictionary page because the primary source words, the animal nouns, do NOT have definitions on the page, the primary criterion for a dictionary. Definitions are provided for the verbs purely for clarification, as the multiple meanings for a given verbal noun would be a matter of guesswork without them. Zoosemy is an irrelevant rtred herring because it is a noun usage for labeling human qualities, not the verbal usage of an animal noun. Note that the page is fully referenced and bibliography of books discussing the concept of animal nouns used as verbs is now included. CWTyler (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary.  The article is basically a collection of trivia.  Separately, I don't feel that Google Translate is a good reference for definitions of words, but the sourcing is irrelevant to the delete vote. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary per WP:NOT.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  12:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's exactly the sort of list that our readers are looking for and that we do well. If absolutely the consensus, I would not oppose moving to Wiktionary. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a shame because a lot of effort went into this, but this is missing any sociological context that would suggest there's any significance to the lists. The article is a hodgepodge of entries (bearing something, as in enduring it, somehow relates to bears?), and I don't see how this improves the encyclopedia. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to wiktionary. Actually, I'm not up on wiktionary's inclusion criteria, so I'm not sure this fit there either.  If not there, then perhaps there's some other wiki which would be an appropriate home for this.  I'm a bit conflicted here.  I can get past the WP:NOT complaints; I was all ready to argue IAR keep.  But, beyond WP:NOT, relying on google translate for the (overwhelming) majority of the sources just doesn't work for us.  I encourage  not to be discouraged.  I think this is an interesting and useful compendium, it just doesn't meet our specific requirements.  Hopefully a better home can be found for it somewhere.  -- RoySmith (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/Move. I know how hard it is to create a list article about a bunch of words as I myself have done it. However, this article's topic is so specific and dictionary like, that it should belong on Wikipedia. I agree with RoySmith, maybe some other wiki project would be a better home for this. But please, do not delete the content (archive it in our sandbox), as it is very neat and may be useful somewhere else. Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 04:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Is "bat" indeed an "animal verb"? Or is this a coinsedence? Does not belong in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.