Talk:Mona Lisa

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 10 years ago by BD2412 in topic RFD
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV[edit]

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.


Mona Lisa[edit]

Rfv-sense: Any piece of art that is exceptional. In the example sentence It's a pretty picture, but it's no Mona Lisa., it seems to refer to the actual Mona Lisa, not a countable common noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Really? If it was referring to the actual Mona Lisa, surely the structure would be: it's not a Mona Lisa? ---> Tooironic 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would think "it's not a Mona Lisa" would be a clear example of "any piece of art that is exception", like *"she was speaking a German" is "she was speaking a German dialect or language, such as Plattdeutsch", whereas "he was speaking German" means he was speaking the actual language. I think the actual Mona Lisa would be "it's not the Mona Lisa", and I'm divided on whether "it's no Mona Lisa" genericises it or not. - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's no Mona Lisa strikes me (a layman) as referring to the actual Mona Lisa. The construction exceedingly productive ("he's good at putting the right punctuation in his sentences, but he's no Victor Borge" etc.).​—msh210 (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
IMHO it seems to be in line with ..., but he's no Einstein. type of comment, which makes the current Mona Lisa entry OK for me. -- ALGRIF talk 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can "Mona Lisa" be used in a positive sentence as synonym to "a piece of art that is exceptional", like saying: "Mark Rothko's No. 61 (Rust and Blue) is a Mona Lisa"? If it cannot, I'd suggest that the term to be defined is not really "Mona Lisa" but "not a Mona Lisa" or "no Mona Lisa", which mean "not an exceptional piece of art". --Hekaheka 23:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Btw, in Elton John's "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters" Mona Lisa definitely means something else than "exceptional piece of art". --Hekaheka 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{look}}

Well, RFV-failed for now, because it's uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


RFD[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.


I would keep the Mona Lisa if, as I suspect, much figurative usage of "Mona Lisa" can be found. ("Has [overly-acclaimed artist] painted another Mona Lisa?" is unlikely to be asking if the artist has made a copy of the old painting, it's likely asking if she has produced a work that shos comparable talent and is comparably valuable / culturally significant.) - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would want to delete the specific proper names of buildings and/or works (all already well detailed at Wikipedia): Arc de Triomphe, Chopsticks, Guerrillero Heroico, Hansel and Gretel, Jabberwocky (but keep the unnominated adjective jabberwocky, which is a generic word), Leaning Tower of Pisa, Mona Lisa, Romeo and Juliet, Star Trek, Venus de Milo. Equinox 21:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kept. bd2412 T 01:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply