Talk:ahead of time

Not idiomatic. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find I am disagreeing with my earlier RfVing self, but I would take correction on this. This seems somewhat idiomatic in that the meaning seems to change when one introduces synonyms or the definition for either ahead of: or time:. One cannot introduce a modifier or determiner between ahead of: and time: without converting it to a literal construction: *"ahead of a particular moment" or a different idiom ("ahead of one's time:"). It seems as idiomatic as on time: (*"on the time", *"on a time", *"on his time") and more than past time: ("past the time", "past a time", "past his time"). DCDuring TALK 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This seems very idiomatic to me. If I say "We're going to need to set up before everyone else arrives, so we have to get there at least half an hour ahead of time", "ahead of time" is acting as a single unit whose meaning is not actually easily derivable from ahead + of + time (or even ahead of + time). —Angr 06:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - in fairness to myself, I only proposed it here because of the content of the RFV debate. It wasn't particularly "my own" opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept, 100% consensus to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification
[[ahead of]] + [[time]] = early. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you are asking if it's a SOP? (This should maybe go to RfD instead.) This seems somewhat idiomatic to me, since, taken literally, "ahead of" + "time" sounds like it should mean the same thing as what we mean when we say "before time." I'm not quite sure, though; I'd lean towards keeping it. Dominic·t 07:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it should be at RfD if anywhere. It might be one that we keep on Pawley's we call it X, they call it Y principle. I think I'll take it to TR. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)