Talk:able for

RFD discussion: May–July 2020
Moved from RFV with the following discussion:

Doesn't turn up on google books that I can find. And if it does exist, is it really best classified as a phrase? 76.100.241.89
 * I'd be fine with this being moved to RfD, if that seems more appropriate. 76.100.241.89
 * I don't really understand the definition. Do the numerous 19th century results on Google Books not fit? DTLHS (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but I don't really get the definition either. 76.100.241.89
 * From the edit history/entry creator, I would guess this may have been added because some other dictionary has it. I added a citation to the citations page, "I'll not be able for get up [...] I'll be goin' for die for sure", but that seems to just be using "for" in place of "to", not using "able for" idiomatically. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Searching Google Books for "able for the work" throws up some apparently relevant hits, but to me "able for" seems like a collocation, or even merely a juxtaposition, not a phrase. I'm not sure there is any more reason to list this than e.g. fit for or ready for. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this trying to explain something about a certain construction in a certain dialect; it says Irish. Okay, able generally means "fit to do something", i.e. qualified and not hindered by any obstruction or disability, so you would think SoP. But there is the matter of the construction. Why do we say "I would love to swim" and not "I would love swimming", or "I adore to swim"? So: "able to swim" (normal) but "able for swimming" (dialectal) maybe? If only the Irish use this form (I have no idea) then it's interesting to document. I am not sure about this kind of weird Adjective+Preposition entry title... I have expressed my opinions about the need for a WikiGrammar before. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * cited. The thing is, to use 's example, it is not "able for swimming", but rather, "able for swim". I am not at all sure that this is an idiomatic phrase, it looks more to me like an idiosyncratic syntax for certain dialects. For example, I can also find "happy for go to school" Kiwima (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is tricky. In the 1896 cite I provided and the 1898 cite, what has been cited is clearly a general use of "for" to mean or replace "to", not (or not just) "able for" as an idiomatic string ≈"able to", because e.g. the 1898 cite also says a certain place was "firs rate place for shoot a woodcocks, I tell you", and "I say [it] wass no use for spen money", etc. So, I would move those citations (at least the parts where they use for as to not just with "able") to [[for]]. The 1899 cite is quoting a letter which is too short for/to contain any other instances of "for", so it's hard to judge one way or the other. The 2006 Gaijin Yokozuna cite is interesting, it does contain "able for" in representations of dialectal(?) speech that otherwise don't seem to use "for" for "to", but which also contain other nonstandard word usages that make it hard to be sure if "able for" or just "for" is the idiomatically-used word. Wright's English Dialect Dictionary, in the entry "able", does assert that this is a real collocation with "able" in Irish English, with a cite from Paddiana (1848), "he'd never be able for the attornies". And Richard Allsopp and ‎Jeannette Allsopp's 2003 Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage, in the process of mentioning Carribbean Englishes' use of "able with" (as in "he was not able with that kind of work"), mentions not only the Irish use recorded in the EDD, but also asserts "present rural Uls[ter] E[nglish use like] 'she was well able for him'&thinsp;", again as a collocation with "able". I am tentatively inclined to think this is better handled as a sense of [[for]] and perhaps a usage note at [[able]] regarding collocation, rather than an entry [[able for]]. What say our grammarians, and Irish-English speakers? - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO we overuse the concept of 'phrasal verb' to justify entries for collocations. This seems like such a case. This seems like dialectal use of for, possibly inherited from some version of Gaelic. The same applies to able for him, which might be a survival of the obsolete definition in the entry for able ("Suitable; competent"). DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree in this case. I propose we move this to RFD, where the types of folks who are interested in these issues are more likely to see it. Kiwima (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, IMO: two of the cites are unambiguously just attestations of an unusual use of "for", not an idiomatic use of "able for" as a lexical unit. The rest are debatable, but my inclination is to handle this via a sense at "for" (attested also in other collocations, as I mentioned above) and a usage note at "able" mentioning the various collocations ("able for" in Irish English, "able with" in several Carribbean Englishes, etc). - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Belongs to grammars and not into a dictionary, unless as a usage note of a part of it or into a grammatical appendix. Fay Freak (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fay Freak, -sche and all of the above. PUC – 13:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Deleted. As I proposed, I added the general use of for for to to for, and added a usage note to able, please revise either if necessary. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)