Talk:about

I suggest put more easy to understand quotations ( better examples than literature, specially if they are poems - more diffucult to understand, generally- ).
 * I've no objection; feel free to add them to those that are already there. I've been adapting the 1913 Webster entries, and giving more specific identification to the Shakespeare quotes, but the meanings have not stood still in the 90 years since.

About derivated terms, better a link to the verb ( and in any case, include examples of use ).Mac 16:42 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * I should probably have wikied the derived terms so that there is a place to give fuller explanation when needed. In general they seem well placed at the end of the article than immediately after the verb. (But then "about" is not to my knowledge used as a verb.)  As to examples, I agree; go ahead and add them in.


 * On a completely different point (which should probably be discussed elsewhere) I wonder how useful it is to link to "noun" from every word that is one. I would tend to prefer a glossary that could be accessed from an entry on the quick bar and which would list explanations of certain common terms. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the quick bar. I didn´t know about it. So go ahead ;) I think a "wikification" of all the worlds in an article would be interesting. Similar to the What is plug-in for webpages. Everybody no has the same cultural level and such this wikification would be interesting to see the meanings of more than one word and go back easily to the main article :-? Mac 20:58 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Here's a good example of what I was talking about before. I'm not going to rfc this, because it's certainly clean enough to be usable. But at the very least, the quotations could use an overhaul, and as always we should check BNC, google and whatever else for interesting usages. -dmh 19:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canadian audio
I hate to break the news to everyone but that Canadian audio file is inaccurate and clearly joke vandalism. 65.93.137.190 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Canadians typically pronounce about as 'a-boat', though. Someone should add that.70.56.73.235 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in Canada? I've never heard it. The current pronunciations are accurate, however. JodianWarrior (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard "a-boot" or "a-boat". I've added the correct pronunciation. (At least in my area.) --Bran

another about
he came about and did something

'about' a subject
As in the sense of 'we talked about cats'. I noticed that this sense seems to be missing. At least, I don't think any of the existing senses covers it. Am I missing something here or is it really not there? —CodeCat 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is sense 7. The sequence of the senses is more or less from older, more spatial sense to figurative to grammatical. Unfortunately, such a sequence, useful for maintaining some coherence to the PoS section, places what might be the most common sense at the bottom. That definition also included the word, now mostly UK, I think, which is misleading for many users as its literal meaning is relatively more common. Finally, the wording of some of the definitions seems dated to me, showing a Webster 1913 heritage. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for clearing that up. The usage example helps a lot. But there is one other sense I can't find either. The sense of 'I am crazy about (something)'. Is that idiomatic or is it a real sense? The trouble is that the translations differ depending on whether it's just 'about' or '(adjective) about'. 'Talk about cats' in Dutch is 'praten over katten', but to be crazy about cats is 'gek op katten' (where gek does literally mean crazy). —CodeCat 12:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just reading CGEL, which is quite complete about such matters. Many English adjectives are optionally followed by prepositions, quite a few by "about". Following is their list of adjectives which they say is mandatorily followed by "about" (or "at"): "annoyed", "concerned", "aggrieved", "angry", "annoyed", "concerned", "cross", "delighted", "glad", "happy", "knowledgeable", "mad" ("crazy"), "pleased", "reasonable". For many of these "over" is a common alternate in English, but not, I think, for "cross", "knowledgeable", "glad", "mad", "crazy", "happy", "reasonable". DCDuring TALK 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should have an entry crazy about? —CodeCat 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian pronunciations
If the Canadian pronunciations are wrong, shouldn't the SAMPA and not just the IPA be removed? See. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't spent the time on Sampa yet, I just know that what they had for the Canadian IPA was incorrect. I thought about deleting the entire lines, but decided against it. Speednat (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SAMPA transcriptions should match IPA transcriptions, and in this case the Ontario one did and the Canadia one corresponded to /əˈbʌut/, so I've removed them. this page appears to attract a lot of fake or incorrect Canadian pronunciations, hopefully a Canadian can add a valid one. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * again thanks, I will just delete the faulty sampa, if I change the IPA in the future, or maybe I will spend the time to learn Sampa. Speednat (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with the IPA? Canadian raising says it's [ʌu] or [ɛʉ], but the entry had [ʌʊ] and [ɛʊ]; is that the issue or is it something else? &mdash;Internoob 20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the problem is that based on wiktionary, we don't utilize the finer points of IPA. Between the /'s on pronunciation we give a broad transcription, and we don't go into that deep of detail. The reason I had a "problem" with it, is if I go to theabove named Wiktionary guide page for IPA, or others on Wiktionary, or even Wikipedia, they don't show the symbols you were using. Is there a way, you can show the Canadian way of speaking, utilizing the standards of Wiktionary? I have seen mention that the word about /ə.baʊt/ can be shown as /ə.boʊt/.

As a Canadian, I was asked to take a look at the Canadian pronunciations featured in this entry, so here's my two cents. Neither one of the audio clips raises any obvious red flags to my ear. I think the difference between them might be explained by regional variation. The uploader of File:En-ca-about.ogg, User:Tawker, states on his userpage that he's from Vancouver. That explains why, of the two clips, that one sounded more "correct" to my ear — I'm from the Vancouver area myself. The uploader of File:En-ca-about-real.ogg, User:Bran, states he's from Windsor, Ontario on his Twitter account. Vancouver is roughly 3000 miles from Windsor, so comparing a Vancouver speaker to one from Windsor is rather like comparing a Seattle speaker to one from Detroit. In any case, it would probably be helpful to point out the regionality of the Canadian clips in the entry. Sorry I'm not able to offer any help regarding IPA transcriptions. Astral (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As an Albertan, I can confirm that the pronunciation given as British Colombian is the way I, as an Albertan, pronounce it. I'm not sure if this means that "Alberta" should be added beside "British Colombia" or if that is supposed to only refer to the location of the actual speaker, but someone else can make that addition if they wish. Also, I'm not an expert on IPA vowels (I'm in the process of learning them right now), but /əˈbʌʊt/ looks about right (pun not intended) for my dialect. JodianWarrior (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
What is the part of speech of 'About' in a game or menu button for example, where it is used alone? 66.112.115.185 08:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a preposition. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

He has his wits about him.
Are He and him coreferents here? Can him in this example be replaced by himself? The wording of this definition should be simplified (I cannot understand it). --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
A) Preposition sense #4:
 * On the point or verge of. (See also usage note below.)
 * 1769, King James Bible, Oxford Standard text, Acts of the Apostles, xviii, 14
 * And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
 * 1866, A treatise on the law of suits by attachment in the United States, by Charles Daniel Drake, page 80
 * [It] was held, that the latter requirement was fulfilled by an affidavit declaring that "the defendant was about leaving the State permanently."
 * (Note: This use passes into the adverbial sense.)
 * [It] was held, that the latter requirement was fulfilled by an affidavit declaring that "the defendant was about leaving the State permanently."
 * (Note: This use passes into the adverbial sense.)

B) Adverb sense #12:


 * 1)  Going to; on the verge of; intending to.

Request verification of whether/how (B) is different from (A). I wonder whether (B) might be referring to the "on the verge of" sense when "about" is not followed by "to verb", such as in the "was about leaving" example in (A), even though "going/intending to" is not actually substitutable as a definition. Is there any basis to think that one is a preposition and the other an adverb? OTOH, I could be barking up the wrong tree. Mihia (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all of these senses should be at about to; the "about leaving the state immediately" construction is obsolete, extremely rare, or has been misinterpreted. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the linked usage note mentions this point. I think we do need to cover the "about leaving"-type usage somewhere, even if this is obsolete or dialect, and of course it cannot go under about to. So I guess either we cover both "about leaving" and "about to leave" at about, or else we cover only "about leaving" there and cross-reference the other to about to. The present approach at about seems to be that it is essentially the same word in both, just that one pattern has gone obsolete, so they should be treated together. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * just about still takes the bare form, though it usually isnt followed by a present tense verb. "i just about died!"  is common, and constructions like "I was just about running by the time i saw the door slam shut" are grammatical but not as common. — Soap — 23:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of "just about" is, in origin, a different sense of "about", essentially that of "nearly" or "almost". We can also sometimes use it in much the same way without "just", e.g. "I was so scared, I about fainted". Mihia (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do agree that we need to cover "about leaving" on "about", if enough citations exist (if there is only one, that one might be a one-off error for "about to"). I suppose the "about to" quotations could all be moved to "about to" and then "about" can have a sense for the "about leaving"-type usage that ends with something like "now only used in about to". (In general I have come to feel that we need to link to "multi-word entries" from their obvious consituent parts more often and prominently.) - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be more than enough relevant examples of "about leaving" at . Mihia (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "About [verb]ing" (= "about to [verb]") is another one where the OED has a whole bunch of examples (eight, precisely) so it's certainly not a one-off. Two illustrative cases: "England seems about deserting him" (Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, Book VI), "I was about stepping forth" (Stoker, Dracula). It's listed as obsolete—but given that Dracula is as late as 1897, it's not surprising if it survives in various dialects. —Nizolan (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Mihia reading through the entries in the OED more carefully I think, based on the regional scope and date, sense #12 (now #11) is not in fact referring to the "about [verb]ing" construction, though we ought to have it anyway, but this one: "In negative constructions: not intending or planning to do something". This is marked as being chiefly North American until the mid 20th century, and I guess at some stage on Wiktionary it was changed from an apparent double negative into a positive. But it refers to phrases like "I'm not about to let the quarantine stop me from going to the beach everyday" or "I'm not about to impose laws on people who disagree with them", which do seem to be a relic of "about to" in its old sense of "planning to do something at any point" rather than "being on the point of doing something"—and the OED accordingly marks it as a subsense of this obsolete usage. —Nizolan (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. It seems, then, if I am keeping track correctly, that we now have at least four related senses/usages: "about to V" meaning "on the point of"; "about V-ing" meaning "on the point of" (now rare/dialect); "about to V" meaning "planning at some time in the future" (obsolete); "not about to V" meaning "not planning at any time in the future" (colloquial, orig. North American). (I'm not sure whether the last two may also exist in the "V-ing" form.) By the way, do you have a view about the PoS of "about" in these patterns? Mihia (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks right. I think since it modifies the verb in these four cases adverb makes the most sense. In "to be [X] [verb]ing" I think adverbs are the only POS that can be substituted in. I suppose with "to be [X] to [verb]" it'd be more usual to find a verb participle there, but calling it an adverb is probably more comprehensible given that it's indeclinable (though adjective might also work e.g. "ready to"?). —Nizolan (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts it might be easier to analyse as an adjective in "about to"? (Compare "ready to", "willing to", "desirous to", etc., all of which we currently analyse as adjectives—I can't think of equivalent "[adverb] to" constructions.) —Nizolan (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, to me it seems plausible that it is an adjective in "about to V". Collins Dictionary calls it so, while others say preposition or adverb. However, in "about V-ing" it seems more like a preposition to me. I feel reluctant to split these over different PoSes. I'm not sure which is preferable -- splitting them or potentially fudging the PoS. Mihia (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I feel less confident, perhaps unconfident, about the adjective interpretation. We can say "I am ready. I am ready to X", "I am willing. I am willing to X", but we can hardly say "I am about. I am about to X". Mihia (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. I'm not sure preposition is the best option though, since typically at least I'd take a preposition to relate to a following noun/noun phrase rather than a verb. Fwiw I think academic linguistics generally treats "be about to" as a fixed modal expression without troubling too much over what "about" is exactly in it; Wiktionary has done something similar for by splitting it from . It might be worth simply pointing to the (already existing)  entry in the same way. —Nizolan (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I've now moved all the "about to" content out of "about" and into "about to", leaving only a "see" link. That link is under "preposition", however, as I think it makes sense to group it with the obsolete "about V-ing", which I feel relatively happy is a preposition. I can live with the slight fudge that "about" in "about to V" may not be a preposition, but if anyone sees a better way to present this, please be my guest! As far as I'm concerned, Resolved. Mihia (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
Adverb sense:


 * Preparing; planning.

Sourced to The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. This is another case where the lack of examples, as well as the fact that the definition does not clearly seem to be the claimed PoS, makes it hard to be sure of the intention. The definition would fit the pattern "about to verb", e.g. "he's about to leave", but of course this is not obsolete. "about" in the sense of "about to verb" is in fact presently given as a preposition sense (other dictionaries differ as to which it is). One of the examples at that entry suggests that there should be a related adverbial sense, but it is not clear to me whether this is it. The related "about verb-ing" pattern is probably obsolete outside certain dialects. Could it be referring to this? I'm not clear why "about" would be an adverb there if we think it is a preposition in "about to verb". If there was a sense e.g. "about dinner" meaning "preparing dinner", it is not clear to me why this would not be a preposition. Anyway, I'm listing this in case someone else can make sense of it and/or has access to the referenced source. Mihia (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The OED entry makes clear that the obsolete sense is specifically about planning to do something at any point in the future, not merely being on the cusp of doing it. Outside of the specific phrase "go about to", whence "go about", this actually seems to have broadly disappeared by the 17th century, at least as far as I can tell on GBooks—the OED's latest example, from 1669, seems more like "on the cusp" to me: "It becomes every man about to transcribe [a work] neither to add any thing of his own [etc]". Earlier examples are unambiguous, but on the fringe of Middle English, e.g. "false traytoure [...] thou arte ever aboute to wynne worship from me" (1470). —Nizolan (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for looking up all the info for this and the other queried senses. I will try to incorporate it into the article in due course. Mihia (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the definition dates as early as 1150 the Middle English Dictionary might be a good source of examples that helped break the tyranny of the Modern English structure we naturally seek to impose on alien-seeming usage. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Resolved. (This content now moved to about to.) Mihia (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
Adverb sense:


 * On the move; active; astir.

The definition does not seem to be clearly that of an adverb, and this entry may just be a mixup with the similarly defined adjective sense, for which examples such as "out and about" and "up and about" are given. I am listing it here in case someone can see something else in it. Note that uses such as "moving about", "rushing about", "jumping about" etc. are covered under a separate definition. Mihia (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Followed up the OED citation. They combine this with "in evidence", which is the sense used in all but one of the examples. The one exception is from 1745: "A little better this morning... I was still out of case but keept about". Like "in evidence" this looks like an adjective to me, I don't know why they've filed it as an adverb. —Nizolan (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On this basis I have deleted the adverb sense as a spurious duplicate of the similarly defined adj. sense. As far as I'm concerned, Resolved. Mihia (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
Adverb sense:


 * In succession; one after another; in the course of events.

Since someone has gone to the trouble of giving us a first attested date, I suspect that this sense probably does exist in some form -- I just can't think of any examples where "about" means this. Could it be archaic? Or perhaps I am missing something more obvious. Noting that there is an expression turn and turn about which might be connected somehow. Mihia (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if some sense of "come about" could possibly exemplify this? Mihia (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples from the OED: "Let's be merry—drink about, good folks" (1799), "We have often sat together reading verse about with our children" (1817). Labelled as currently regional/rare. —Nizolan (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the "reading verse" example, with a note that it is quoted in the OED. I can't find the source of the other one, so I haven't added that. This entry does not have its requisite three citations, but, now Nizolan has verified the sense in the OED, I'm personally happy for this RFV to be marked Resolved. Mihia (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

about
Adjective: "Near; in the vicinity or neighbourhood."

The usage examples are for adverbial use. I have not yet found a dictionary that has such a definition under the adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Relevant adjectival definitions of "about" found in other dictionaries:


 * AROUND sense 2: There is a scarcity of jobs about. (M-W)
 * Being in evidence or existence: Rumors are about concerning his resignation. (AH)
 * (predicative) in existence, current, or in circulation: there aren't many about nowadays (Collins)


 * Although these definitions are written from a slightly different angle, which we could perhaps usefully reflect in ours, all seem essentially of the same nature as our examples "Watch out, there's a thief about" and "I had my keys just a minute ago, so they must be about somewhere". Mihia (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that we do in fact have "In existence; being in evidence; apparent" as a separate sense. I would not oppose merging the two. Mihia (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there is no adjective for about, so I think all three "senses" can be deleted and the usage examples reallocated to the adverb and preposition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire concept of adverbs being complements of the "be" verb, as in "a thief is about", is highly problematic and unsatisfactory in my opinion, and risks undermining the whole basis on which we distinguish predicate adjectives, albeit it may sometimes be a necessary evil in the absence of any better explanation. In this case, why would "about" in "a thief is about" be an adverb, while "present" in "a thief is present" be an adjective? Preposition would be arguable if, IMO, we are sure that an object is implied, as in e.g. "a thief is about the place" or "my keys are about the house somewhere", though there may be other schools that would wish to widen the scope of "preposition". I would say, however, unless we want to go wholesale down the route of widening the scope, which would presumably involve substantial changes to many articles, that it would be easier practically to have a fixed rule "no object, no preposition" to fall back on in these cases. Mihia (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept: no consensus after a year. Can be renominated if required; very little participation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)