Talk:'re

RFC discussion: October 2012–September 2017
Tagged but not listed. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Easiest cleanup ever --WF on Holiday (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: July 2017
Given the presence of -'re, I have to presume that 're is intended to document a stand-alone use of the morpheme, e.g. "'re you kiddin' me?". Accordingly, it should be considered a verb, not a suffix. Rriegs (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it might be an oversight; compare 's and -'s. Equinox ◑ 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to find citations of the 'standalone' use Rriegs mentions, although I imagine it could exist (I imagine standalone "'s 'e goin' or not?" and "'m I s'ppos'ta go?", or "s'e goin'..." and "m'I s'ppos'ta..." may also exist). In practice I guess this should be converted to a soft-redirect to -'re like 's to -'s. But if we could manage to cite standalone use, then I guess verb sections at 're and 's and 'm would be the way to handle it. (I note that the clitic "-'m" was at "'m", an oversight I fixed.) - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion: July 2016–December 2019

 * See Talk:'ve.

RFD discussion: October 2019–January 2020
I am not seeing how this can be both a suffix and a contraction but I may be wrong. John Cross (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a suffix IMO. Mihia (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. 're links to this article. I'll leave what it is exactly to the grammar geeks, but that's pedantry at RfD; whatever the headword is, whether we call it a suffix or contraction, there should be a page on 're as something tacked onto the end of words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would call it an alternative form of "are", or a combining form. It functions grammatically as a verb, even if it does fuse completely with the preceding word (you can't hear the difference between "their" and "they're" in most people's speech). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply not a suffix. Delete this and -'s, -'d. Ultimateria (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * At worst, this (and the others) could be moved to the forms without the hyphen ('re, etc). But the content should be kept somewhere. Do other dictionaries and grammars prefer to include these things with hyphens, or without?, what do you think? - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, no OneLook dictionary has an entry for -'re, but some MW, Collins, Cambridge have an entry for 're. That seems like where our main entry should be. We could keep a redirect so templates like don't have to be rewritten immediately. But categories including -'re in their name would have to be deleted, which might mean that templates would have to be rewritten pretty soon.
 * Move to 're. DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support moving as proposed by DCDuring above. John Cross (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to 're with a usage note explaining it's a clitic and can't be used on its own, which I assume is what the hyphen is trying to convey. Julia ☺ ☆ 06:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cross-linking a related discussion: Requests_for_cleanup (which will be found after archiving at Talk:-'ve). - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved the entry to 're. Other related entries, some of which I also moved some senses of: -'ve/'ve, -'s/'s, -'m/'m, -'ll/'ll; see also -', '. - -sche (discuss) 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this has now been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)