I don't argue that the term exeunt is long obsolete in conversational English, but as long as people read Shakespeare, the defination must remain readily available to aid their understanding. Middle English is hard enough to understand, let's not elminate the tools that enable us to still appreciate these writings!
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
This was previously tagged as {{obsolete}} but this was removed by an anonymous contributor. I've had a quick look through the post-1950 bgc hits that do not include the word "Shakespeare" and of the ones I can see there are no obvious modern uses (there are modern reprints of older works, and modern works that quote older uses), but this requires more investigation than I have time for at present. Note that I'm only querying whether or not the term is obsolete, not the definition. Thryduulf 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would tag it as
{{archaic}}, since the term isn't used anymore but its meaning is still understood and recognized by readers. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)- I would have agreed straight out with EP, but occasionally it is used properly as a stage direction in contemporary drama. It is used as a noun meaning exit: "His noisy exeunts". And it is used as a kind of humorous or pseudo-barbaric synonym for the verb "exit", as in "He exeunted from the room." Does that make it "literary" or "archaic"? DCDuring TALK 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also used occasionally in literary allusions. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say it's archaic. That doesn't mean it's never used, only that it's, well, archaic. :-P —RuakhTALK 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- If we exclude the contemporary allusive jocular literary use, then this entry is a particularly poor application of
{{en-verb}}. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- If we exclude the contemporary allusive jocular literary use, then this entry is a particularly poor application of
- Indeed. What a mess. Exeunting and exeunted could probably pass RFV (barely), but not in the sense given. But then, what part of speech is this, anyway? And if it is a verb, how do we separate the real, non-inflecting use from the modern (and very rare) bogusly inflecting use? They surely have the same etymology. Perhaps the first sense line could just be labeled
{{invariant}}or some such? Will need a usage note in any case. -- Visviva 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. What a mess. Exeunting and exeunted could probably pass RFV (barely), but not in the sense given. But then, what part of speech is this, anyway? And if it is a verb, how do we separate the real, non-inflecting use from the modern (and very rare) bogusly inflecting use? They surely have the same etymology. Perhaps the first sense line could just be labeled
- Would we be better off to ignore the literary use of the fully inflected verb, which is certainly rare? I enjoy reading some of the authors who use it, but Stephenson certainly lapses into some silliness. We also should have the Latin inflected form on the page. The noun seems harder to ignore. If we keep the inflected verb, which we probably should, it might warrant a seperate etymology, connecting it to the stage direction. I seem to recall some such entries here. I would like to hear from some others about this one. (And we should try to get Neal Stephenson to write Wiktionary into his next novel or endorse us on his next book tour.) DCDuring TALK 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Latin entry is being held up by a recently discovered problem with the templates used for standard Latin verb format. --EncycloPetey 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The entry seems to be fully cleaned up now. --EncycloPetey 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Noun added. Noun and verb cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)