Talk:roast
Add topic
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
Roast sense 3 to have sexual intercourse with. - TheDaveRoss 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse by some of the classier British tabloids (The Sun, The Star & The Sport would be the places I would look for cites). It seems to be derived from the term spit roast. Where the act of spit roasting involves 2 men, the act of roasting would generally indicate just one, probably from behind (though consistency of application of such a term is probably too much to ask). MGSpiller 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (I really need to find some more respectable terms to cite :-/ )
rfvpassed: Cites needed. to RFC
Incorrectly passed rfv, sense removed (no cites ever did appear!) --Connel MacKenzie 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- They show this sense on Wikipedia (w:Spit roast (sex)): "The term roasting (as opposed to spit roasting) has, since around 2003[citation needed], taken on a meaning somewhat closer to gang bang in the United Kingdom. In other words, the act is not limited to only three people, but often involves one female and numerous males, with the men all taking turns to penetrate the female vagina, anus and mouth." Words of this sort are often difficult to find in print and it really just needs the hand/opinion of a native Brit or two. —Stephen 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
Isn't verb definition 5 pretty much the same thing as verb definition 6? Purplebackpack89 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think they could probably be combined, with the "admonish" sense coming first, since the comedic version seems to be a form of tongue-in-cheek admonishment. P Aculeius (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind either way actually. I agree entirely with P Aculeius's analysis I just think the thin distinction might be enough to keep them separate. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Admonish doesn't seem quite right to me. Most current dictionaries have criticize:
- Eg, MWOnline has "to subject to severe criticism or ridicule <films have been roasted by most critics — H. J. Seldes>" AND
- "to honor (a person) at a roast."
- Century 1911 OTOH has "expose (a person) to scathing ridicule or jesting, as by a company of persons, or for the amusement of a company. [Slang.]"
- OED has just one definition that combines these senses: "colloq. To severely ridicule, reprimand, or interrogate (a person); to criticize or denounce. Also (chiefly N. Amer.): to subject to good-natured ridicule or banter; cf. roast n. 4."
- The wording of the first MW sense and the Century sense seem to be suggestive of metaphorical roasting.
- What happens at a roast is not criticism: it is jesting at an honoree's expense, often involving hyperbole of traits (age, drinking, big ears, etc) of the honoree, but sometimes using more generic insulting jests. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merely because someone is being roasted good-naturedly or in jest doesn't mean that a different definition is being used, any more than pelting someone with verbal barbs involves a different definition from pelting them with stones or snowballs. P Aculeius (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously it does to some lexicographers, if not to all.
- We, like most dictionaries, distinguish between literal and figurative senses on a regular basis. To take pelt as an example, MWOnline:
- "1a: to strike with a succession of blows or missiles <pelted him with stones>
- b: to assail vigorously or persistently <pelted her with accusations>"
- For some uses of some words the metaphorical sense has become quite conventional. For others the metaphor is more live. The former we should address with a definition or, at least, some acknowledgement. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merely because someone is being roasted good-naturedly or in jest doesn't mean that a different definition is being used, any more than pelting someone with verbal barbs involves a different definition from pelting them with stones or snowballs. P Aculeius (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind either way actually. I agree entirely with P Aculeius's analysis I just think the thin distinction might be enough to keep them separate. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)