Talk:abide with
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
This is not properly a phrasal verb. It is (deprecated template usage) abide + (deprecated template usage) with, heading a prepositional phrase. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, very strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Virtually any action can be taken "with" someone else - "eat with", "dance with", "shop with", "drown with". We only need to have specific entry for these when the "with" fundamentally changes the meaning of the verb ("play with", "bear with"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. SOP. Astral (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Some of Category:English phrasal verbs (2000+ members) are similarly compositional. Is there a way to make a winnowing process more efficient? Grouping? Mentioning contrasting true phrasal verbs in the RfD nomination? My thought is that some folks weigh in to the RfD discussion without appreciating the distinctions between phrasal verbs and ordinary verbs with an adverb or PP. Sadly, we still don't have any criteria other than the general semantic one. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, no, the best method I am aware of is just reviewing them manually and nominating them for deletion manually. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Normally in such cases I say to redirect (in this case it'd be to [[abide]]). but I don't recognize this collocation as common, and Google gives a first-page estimate of only 2.75 million Web hits (contrast 67.1 million for abide by, 143 million for live with, and 59.5 million for party with), so I'll say to delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are we going by usage, or by how likely it is someone will want to look it up? This is an archaic phrase, used nowadays mostly by people quoting or imitating the King James Version of the Bible, so it's not in wide, general use. Still, the KJV is one of the most widely-read single texts in English, and its archaic language means fewer people know what it means without help from a dictionary. I would suspect that it generates Wiktionary traffic way out of proportion to its presence in Google searches. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- No matter how likely it is someone will want to look it up, they're infinitely more likely to simply look up [[abide]] than they are to assume [[abide with]] is a phrasal verb and look that up instead. Delete. —Angr 05:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly agree, anyone who doesn't understand this will look up abide, not abide with. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- No matter how likely it is someone will want to look it up, they're infinitely more likely to simply look up [[abide]] than they are to assume [[abide with]] is a phrasal verb and look that up instead. Delete. —Angr 05:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are we going by usage, or by how likely it is someone will want to look it up? This is an archaic phrase, used nowadays mostly by people quoting or imitating the King James Version of the Bible, so it's not in wide, general use. Still, the KJV is one of the most widely-read single texts in English, and its archaic language means fewer people know what it means without help from a dictionary. I would suspect that it generates Wiktionary traffic way out of proportion to its presence in Google searches. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by Mglovesfun. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)