Talk:call on

Deletion debate

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.

---

call on

Rfd-sense:

1. (idiomatic) In a classroom, to select a student.

Is redundant to

1. (idiomatic) To request or ask of somebody; to select for a task.

They don't look the same, but I think they are. If you 'call on' a student, it's always going to be for them to do something isn't it? Plus surely it doesn't have to be a student. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. In sense 1, a teacher can "call on" a student who has his/her hand up, thereby giving said student permission to ask a question; but I don't think that fits at all with sense 2. (I'm not sure how well-defined the distinction is between the two senses — there definitely seems to be overlap — but I really don't think a single def could cover both.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be really suprised if the sense is as narrow as "In a classroom, to select a student". So it has to be a student, not only that, but in a classroom. Can I not call at someone at work, or call on someone in a classroom that's not a student? Or call on a student but outside the classroom. Granted, classroom is a meronym for "educational setting", but there is that ambiguity. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right that there are some other situations where this sense of "call on" is applicable — for example, a person holding a press conference chooses which reporter to "call on", allowing said reporter to ask his or her question (see e.g. this b.g.c. hit, found via a search for "called on the reporter") — but I think you're wrong that this sense is redundant with the "request" sense, given that it's just as often a matter of giving permission as of making a request. (I wonder if there's a U.S./U.K. difference here?) —Ruakh_TALK 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, Ruakh. Keep.​—msh210℠ 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with nom's assessment. Ƿidsiþ 12:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The newly added sense doesn't seem to be a phrasal verb. I think there are many adverbials that can fill the "on it" slot, even when clauses, but most especially prepositional phrases headed by "on", "about", "concerning", "re", "over".

There seem to be distinguishable senses:

1. calling on someone to do something (which seems to be what we have) and
2. calling on something (in the sense of drawing down a resource, possibly a personal resource)

The challenged sense does not seem to require an infinitive, in contrast to 1 and 3 which do seem to. It seems a stretch to deem sense 2 an elliptical version of one of the others. I don't think too much can be made of a student or audience member having raised their hand or not. In classrooms and certain types someone at the front of the room may have the power to ask a question of an individual. The common element seems to be the ability of someone in the front to invite an individual in the audience to speak. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And isn't there a sense of "call on" that means initiate (?) courting. I think it might lead to "keeping company with", which in turn might lead to dancing. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the senses requires an infinitive. Sense #3 ("to request […] ") seems to require, or almost require, an additional complement besides the person called on; that complement is usually either an infinitive or a for-phrase indicating what is being requested, but sometimes it's some other random adverbial. (I've added a citation of each type — infinitive, for, and other; please take a look.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 02:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

call upon

call upon reads "Alternative form of call on (certain senses)". JMGN (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)