Is 'distinctives' an obsolete word?
Elsewhere on Stack Exchange I noticed the word 'distinctive' used as a noun and its plural expressed :
How can we educate new users about our site distinctives ?
Bible Hermeneutics - Meta
The OED states that the word 'distinctive' is both an adjective and a noun but it lists references to the noun only up to the nineteenth century.
I can see that the word has a different meaning to 'characteristics' in that 'distinctives' refers to particular characteristics which distinguish something from others of its type.
So, a word which may be useful and a word which someone has used in living memory but is it, officially, an obsolete word ?
word-usage
|
show 3 more comments
Elsewhere on Stack Exchange I noticed the word 'distinctive' used as a noun and its plural expressed :
How can we educate new users about our site distinctives ?
Bible Hermeneutics - Meta
The OED states that the word 'distinctive' is both an adjective and a noun but it lists references to the noun only up to the nineteenth century.
I can see that the word has a different meaning to 'characteristics' in that 'distinctives' refers to particular characteristics which distinguish something from others of its type.
So, a word which may be useful and a word which someone has used in living memory but is it, officially, an obsolete word ?
word-usage
If "Incredibles" isn't obsolete, why would "distinctives" be?
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
@HotLicks The OED has a solitary reference for the noun 'incredible' from 1610. And, indeed, the OED specifies that it is normally in the plural form. But you are quite correct, it does not tell me that the word is obsolete.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
1
Note that there are a number of other words (eg, "notables") where an adjective has been nounified and then pluralized. Though there are no doubt informal "rules" for when this is allowed, it is a reasonably legitimate action, and the resulting word is likewise "legitimate" even if rare or even "one-off'.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
1
Even the nounal definition of "distinctive" is obsolete, it remains commonplace to use adjectives as nouns that stand for what that noun describes. In fact, it's a known literary device whose name excapes me right now. It's what Hillary Clinton did when she quite famously (or infamously, depending on your politics) referred to half of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables."
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman I would argue that the nounal definition isn't obsolete. (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011 [+ more]). See my answer for further info. Regarding the fact that dictionaries do not list the plural, not everything can be found on the Internet.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
Elsewhere on Stack Exchange I noticed the word 'distinctive' used as a noun and its plural expressed :
How can we educate new users about our site distinctives ?
Bible Hermeneutics - Meta
The OED states that the word 'distinctive' is both an adjective and a noun but it lists references to the noun only up to the nineteenth century.
I can see that the word has a different meaning to 'characteristics' in that 'distinctives' refers to particular characteristics which distinguish something from others of its type.
So, a word which may be useful and a word which someone has used in living memory but is it, officially, an obsolete word ?
word-usage
Elsewhere on Stack Exchange I noticed the word 'distinctive' used as a noun and its plural expressed :
How can we educate new users about our site distinctives ?
Bible Hermeneutics - Meta
The OED states that the word 'distinctive' is both an adjective and a noun but it lists references to the noun only up to the nineteenth century.
I can see that the word has a different meaning to 'characteristics' in that 'distinctives' refers to particular characteristics which distinguish something from others of its type.
So, a word which may be useful and a word which someone has used in living memory but is it, officially, an obsolete word ?
word-usage
word-usage
asked Mar 31 at 0:29
Nigel JNigel J
17.4k94587
17.4k94587
If "Incredibles" isn't obsolete, why would "distinctives" be?
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
@HotLicks The OED has a solitary reference for the noun 'incredible' from 1610. And, indeed, the OED specifies that it is normally in the plural form. But you are quite correct, it does not tell me that the word is obsolete.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
1
Note that there are a number of other words (eg, "notables") where an adjective has been nounified and then pluralized. Though there are no doubt informal "rules" for when this is allowed, it is a reasonably legitimate action, and the resulting word is likewise "legitimate" even if rare or even "one-off'.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
1
Even the nounal definition of "distinctive" is obsolete, it remains commonplace to use adjectives as nouns that stand for what that noun describes. In fact, it's a known literary device whose name excapes me right now. It's what Hillary Clinton did when she quite famously (or infamously, depending on your politics) referred to half of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables."
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman I would argue that the nounal definition isn't obsolete. (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011 [+ more]). See my answer for further info. Regarding the fact that dictionaries do not list the plural, not everything can be found on the Internet.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
If "Incredibles" isn't obsolete, why would "distinctives" be?
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
@HotLicks The OED has a solitary reference for the noun 'incredible' from 1610. And, indeed, the OED specifies that it is normally in the plural form. But you are quite correct, it does not tell me that the word is obsolete.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
1
Note that there are a number of other words (eg, "notables") where an adjective has been nounified and then pluralized. Though there are no doubt informal "rules" for when this is allowed, it is a reasonably legitimate action, and the resulting word is likewise "legitimate" even if rare or even "one-off'.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
1
Even the nounal definition of "distinctive" is obsolete, it remains commonplace to use adjectives as nouns that stand for what that noun describes. In fact, it's a known literary device whose name excapes me right now. It's what Hillary Clinton did when she quite famously (or infamously, depending on your politics) referred to half of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables."
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman I would argue that the nounal definition isn't obsolete. (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011 [+ more]). See my answer for further info. Regarding the fact that dictionaries do not list the plural, not everything can be found on the Internet.
– Lordology
2 days ago
If "Incredibles" isn't obsolete, why would "distinctives" be?
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
If "Incredibles" isn't obsolete, why would "distinctives" be?
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
@HotLicks The OED has a solitary reference for the noun 'incredible' from 1610. And, indeed, the OED specifies that it is normally in the plural form. But you are quite correct, it does not tell me that the word is obsolete.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
@HotLicks The OED has a solitary reference for the noun 'incredible' from 1610. And, indeed, the OED specifies that it is normally in the plural form. But you are quite correct, it does not tell me that the word is obsolete.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
1
1
Note that there are a number of other words (eg, "notables") where an adjective has been nounified and then pluralized. Though there are no doubt informal "rules" for when this is allowed, it is a reasonably legitimate action, and the resulting word is likewise "legitimate" even if rare or even "one-off'.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Note that there are a number of other words (eg, "notables") where an adjective has been nounified and then pluralized. Though there are no doubt informal "rules" for when this is allowed, it is a reasonably legitimate action, and the resulting word is likewise "legitimate" even if rare or even "one-off'.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
1
1
Even the nounal definition of "distinctive" is obsolete, it remains commonplace to use adjectives as nouns that stand for what that noun describes. In fact, it's a known literary device whose name excapes me right now. It's what Hillary Clinton did when she quite famously (or infamously, depending on your politics) referred to half of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables."
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
Even the nounal definition of "distinctive" is obsolete, it remains commonplace to use adjectives as nouns that stand for what that noun describes. In fact, it's a known literary device whose name excapes me right now. It's what Hillary Clinton did when she quite famously (or infamously, depending on your politics) referred to half of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables."
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman I would argue that the nounal definition isn't obsolete. (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011 [+ more]). See my answer for further info. Regarding the fact that dictionaries do not list the plural, not everything can be found on the Internet.
– Lordology
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman I would argue that the nounal definition isn't obsolete. (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011 [+ more]). See my answer for further info. Regarding the fact that dictionaries do not list the plural, not everything can be found on the Internet.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
TL;DR of my post: It hasn't fallen out of use enough/doesn't fit the criteria for obsoleteness, and the plural noun form is still used today.
No.
But before we can proceed, we must look at what makes a word obsolete.
“We rarely take words out of our dictionaries,” says Mary O’Neill, managing editor of the largest single-volume English language dictionary, the unabridged Collins English Dictionary, which clocks in at 2,305 pages. “This is especially true of our larger dictionaries. If we find that a word has fallen out of general use, or is not used as much as it was before, we usually label such words as ‘obsolete,’ ‘archaic,’ or ‘old-fashioned’ rather than deleting them entirely.”
This paragraph, from Mary O'Neill of the CED, tells us that words that have fallen out of general use have the possibility of being marked obsolete.
But does distinctive(s) match this criterion?
Well, on the OED page, it's marked as a Band 6 word, though this is probably for the adjectival form, is:
Band 6 contains words which occur between 10 and 100 times per million words in typical modern English usage, including a wide range of descriptive vocabulary. It contains many nouns referring to specific objects, entities, processes, and ideas, running from dog, horse, ship, machine, mile, assessment, army, career, stress to gas, explosion, desert, parish, envelope, and headache...
So this implies that it's a word used as much as desert, to name one.
If we head over to NGrams, the word, including the noun form, appears to be on the up!
But if we head over to pretty much all dictionaries, even Google's, it doesn't appear to be a word.
However, as distinctives is the understandable plural of distinctive, lexicographers won't remove words that can be drawn from other words.
From Peter Gilliver, Senior Editor of the OED:
“Because a word like livery is still current, we don’t mark the extremely scarce derivative liveryless as obsolete because it is formed from elements which are still current and could be re-formed at any time.”
This applies to distinctives. (distinctive + -s plural)
Here is a book example from 2007 where it's used as a noun. There are more examples, should you care to look.
Since distinctive as a noun is still a used word today (See NGrams again); not marked as rare or otherwise, we can draw the conclusion:
There is no evidence to support it being rare; as a noun, it is still used today; therefore it is not, by most standards, an obsolete word.
1
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491993%2fis-distinctives-an-obsolete-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
TL;DR of my post: It hasn't fallen out of use enough/doesn't fit the criteria for obsoleteness, and the plural noun form is still used today.
No.
But before we can proceed, we must look at what makes a word obsolete.
“We rarely take words out of our dictionaries,” says Mary O’Neill, managing editor of the largest single-volume English language dictionary, the unabridged Collins English Dictionary, which clocks in at 2,305 pages. “This is especially true of our larger dictionaries. If we find that a word has fallen out of general use, or is not used as much as it was before, we usually label such words as ‘obsolete,’ ‘archaic,’ or ‘old-fashioned’ rather than deleting them entirely.”
This paragraph, from Mary O'Neill of the CED, tells us that words that have fallen out of general use have the possibility of being marked obsolete.
But does distinctive(s) match this criterion?
Well, on the OED page, it's marked as a Band 6 word, though this is probably for the adjectival form, is:
Band 6 contains words which occur between 10 and 100 times per million words in typical modern English usage, including a wide range of descriptive vocabulary. It contains many nouns referring to specific objects, entities, processes, and ideas, running from dog, horse, ship, machine, mile, assessment, army, career, stress to gas, explosion, desert, parish, envelope, and headache...
So this implies that it's a word used as much as desert, to name one.
If we head over to NGrams, the word, including the noun form, appears to be on the up!
But if we head over to pretty much all dictionaries, even Google's, it doesn't appear to be a word.
However, as distinctives is the understandable plural of distinctive, lexicographers won't remove words that can be drawn from other words.
From Peter Gilliver, Senior Editor of the OED:
“Because a word like livery is still current, we don’t mark the extremely scarce derivative liveryless as obsolete because it is formed from elements which are still current and could be re-formed at any time.”
This applies to distinctives. (distinctive + -s plural)
Here is a book example from 2007 where it's used as a noun. There are more examples, should you care to look.
Since distinctive as a noun is still a used word today (See NGrams again); not marked as rare or otherwise, we can draw the conclusion:
There is no evidence to support it being rare; as a noun, it is still used today; therefore it is not, by most standards, an obsolete word.
1
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
TL;DR of my post: It hasn't fallen out of use enough/doesn't fit the criteria for obsoleteness, and the plural noun form is still used today.
No.
But before we can proceed, we must look at what makes a word obsolete.
“We rarely take words out of our dictionaries,” says Mary O’Neill, managing editor of the largest single-volume English language dictionary, the unabridged Collins English Dictionary, which clocks in at 2,305 pages. “This is especially true of our larger dictionaries. If we find that a word has fallen out of general use, or is not used as much as it was before, we usually label such words as ‘obsolete,’ ‘archaic,’ or ‘old-fashioned’ rather than deleting them entirely.”
This paragraph, from Mary O'Neill of the CED, tells us that words that have fallen out of general use have the possibility of being marked obsolete.
But does distinctive(s) match this criterion?
Well, on the OED page, it's marked as a Band 6 word, though this is probably for the adjectival form, is:
Band 6 contains words which occur between 10 and 100 times per million words in typical modern English usage, including a wide range of descriptive vocabulary. It contains many nouns referring to specific objects, entities, processes, and ideas, running from dog, horse, ship, machine, mile, assessment, army, career, stress to gas, explosion, desert, parish, envelope, and headache...
So this implies that it's a word used as much as desert, to name one.
If we head over to NGrams, the word, including the noun form, appears to be on the up!
But if we head over to pretty much all dictionaries, even Google's, it doesn't appear to be a word.
However, as distinctives is the understandable plural of distinctive, lexicographers won't remove words that can be drawn from other words.
From Peter Gilliver, Senior Editor of the OED:
“Because a word like livery is still current, we don’t mark the extremely scarce derivative liveryless as obsolete because it is formed from elements which are still current and could be re-formed at any time.”
This applies to distinctives. (distinctive + -s plural)
Here is a book example from 2007 where it's used as a noun. There are more examples, should you care to look.
Since distinctive as a noun is still a used word today (See NGrams again); not marked as rare or otherwise, we can draw the conclusion:
There is no evidence to support it being rare; as a noun, it is still used today; therefore it is not, by most standards, an obsolete word.
1
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
TL;DR of my post: It hasn't fallen out of use enough/doesn't fit the criteria for obsoleteness, and the plural noun form is still used today.
No.
But before we can proceed, we must look at what makes a word obsolete.
“We rarely take words out of our dictionaries,” says Mary O’Neill, managing editor of the largest single-volume English language dictionary, the unabridged Collins English Dictionary, which clocks in at 2,305 pages. “This is especially true of our larger dictionaries. If we find that a word has fallen out of general use, or is not used as much as it was before, we usually label such words as ‘obsolete,’ ‘archaic,’ or ‘old-fashioned’ rather than deleting them entirely.”
This paragraph, from Mary O'Neill of the CED, tells us that words that have fallen out of general use have the possibility of being marked obsolete.
But does distinctive(s) match this criterion?
Well, on the OED page, it's marked as a Band 6 word, though this is probably for the adjectival form, is:
Band 6 contains words which occur between 10 and 100 times per million words in typical modern English usage, including a wide range of descriptive vocabulary. It contains many nouns referring to specific objects, entities, processes, and ideas, running from dog, horse, ship, machine, mile, assessment, army, career, stress to gas, explosion, desert, parish, envelope, and headache...
So this implies that it's a word used as much as desert, to name one.
If we head over to NGrams, the word, including the noun form, appears to be on the up!
But if we head over to pretty much all dictionaries, even Google's, it doesn't appear to be a word.
However, as distinctives is the understandable plural of distinctive, lexicographers won't remove words that can be drawn from other words.
From Peter Gilliver, Senior Editor of the OED:
“Because a word like livery is still current, we don’t mark the extremely scarce derivative liveryless as obsolete because it is formed from elements which are still current and could be re-formed at any time.”
This applies to distinctives. (distinctive + -s plural)
Here is a book example from 2007 where it's used as a noun. There are more examples, should you care to look.
Since distinctive as a noun is still a used word today (See NGrams again); not marked as rare or otherwise, we can draw the conclusion:
There is no evidence to support it being rare; as a noun, it is still used today; therefore it is not, by most standards, an obsolete word.
TL;DR of my post: It hasn't fallen out of use enough/doesn't fit the criteria for obsoleteness, and the plural noun form is still used today.
No.
But before we can proceed, we must look at what makes a word obsolete.
“We rarely take words out of our dictionaries,” says Mary O’Neill, managing editor of the largest single-volume English language dictionary, the unabridged Collins English Dictionary, which clocks in at 2,305 pages. “This is especially true of our larger dictionaries. If we find that a word has fallen out of general use, or is not used as much as it was before, we usually label such words as ‘obsolete,’ ‘archaic,’ or ‘old-fashioned’ rather than deleting them entirely.”
This paragraph, from Mary O'Neill of the CED, tells us that words that have fallen out of general use have the possibility of being marked obsolete.
But does distinctive(s) match this criterion?
Well, on the OED page, it's marked as a Band 6 word, though this is probably for the adjectival form, is:
Band 6 contains words which occur between 10 and 100 times per million words in typical modern English usage, including a wide range of descriptive vocabulary. It contains many nouns referring to specific objects, entities, processes, and ideas, running from dog, horse, ship, machine, mile, assessment, army, career, stress to gas, explosion, desert, parish, envelope, and headache...
So this implies that it's a word used as much as desert, to name one.
If we head over to NGrams, the word, including the noun form, appears to be on the up!
But if we head over to pretty much all dictionaries, even Google's, it doesn't appear to be a word.
However, as distinctives is the understandable plural of distinctive, lexicographers won't remove words that can be drawn from other words.
From Peter Gilliver, Senior Editor of the OED:
“Because a word like livery is still current, we don’t mark the extremely scarce derivative liveryless as obsolete because it is formed from elements which are still current and could be re-formed at any time.”
This applies to distinctives. (distinctive + -s plural)
Here is a book example from 2007 where it's used as a noun. There are more examples, should you care to look.
Since distinctive as a noun is still a used word today (See NGrams again); not marked as rare or otherwise, we can draw the conclusion:
There is no evidence to support it being rare; as a noun, it is still used today; therefore it is not, by most standards, an obsolete word.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
LordologyLordology
1,513217
1,513217
1
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
1
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
1
1
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
Excellent. Thank you. +1.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
If the downvoter could briefly explain why they did what they did, that would be great.
– Lordology
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
I think you may be getting down votes because you said "TL;DR." What the asker wrote wasn't very long, and saying you didn't bother to read it, well, that's a bit rough, a rude thing to say. You can get away with saying things like that on Twitter or Yahoo Answers, but this site doesn't put up with it. This site has a culture wherein there's a standard of respect, and telling someone you're answering that you didn't even bother to read what they wrote because it was too long, especially when it wasn't, is beyond the pale for this site.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@Lordology -- Easy with the explanation points. You asked a question and I'm just spit-balling. I didn't give you a down vote. Anyway, when you say "TL;DR," it doesn't come across as being about your answer, not to me. So, I'm just making a friendly suggestion based on my humble opinion. That's all.
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman Apologies for the exclamation marks. I was just panicked about offending someone/people; I thought I was being helpful by summarising my answer.
– Lordology
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491993%2fis-distinctives-an-obsolete-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
If "Incredibles" isn't obsolete, why would "distinctives" be?
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
@HotLicks The OED has a solitary reference for the noun 'incredible' from 1610. And, indeed, the OED specifies that it is normally in the plural form. But you are quite correct, it does not tell me that the word is obsolete.
– Nigel J
2 days ago
1
Note that there are a number of other words (eg, "notables") where an adjective has been nounified and then pluralized. Though there are no doubt informal "rules" for when this is allowed, it is a reasonably legitimate action, and the resulting word is likewise "legitimate" even if rare or even "one-off'.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
1
Even the nounal definition of "distinctive" is obsolete, it remains commonplace to use adjectives as nouns that stand for what that noun describes. In fact, it's a known literary device whose name excapes me right now. It's what Hillary Clinton did when she quite famously (or infamously, depending on your politics) referred to half of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables."
– Benjamin Harman
2 days ago
@BenjaminHarman I would argue that the nounal definition isn't obsolete. (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011 [+ more]). See my answer for further info. Regarding the fact that dictionaries do not list the plural, not everything can be found on the Internet.
– Lordology
2 days ago