Talk:be fond of

be fond of
Sum of parts. We don't include be: in the names of verbs. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is IMHO idiomatic and certainly a very common term, so I think it should be kept at least as translations target or phrasebook entry. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps keep fond of, but not with be. After all, you can become fond of someone, or grow fond of someone. "I was never fond of him" (separating be from fond). Equinox ◑ 10:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked some printed bilingual dictionaries at hand, and all have an entry be fond of somebody/something, which is listed under fond. Would it make sense to do something similar here?Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it just be at fond using ? I don't think separating this from fond is beneficial, the opposite in fact, it'll put the definition on two pages, instead of one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No such sense at fond right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do not see any reason for "fond of", even less "be fond of", to have a separate entry. It is simply "fond", with "of" indicating the target. 86.179.113.152


 * I took a stab at the most common sense of fond, with "of", which was missing. Redirect to fond:. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as translation target, hence outside of current CFI. From what I recall, this is used in translation dictionaries, as it is substitutable with "like" and translates as one unit into several languages: "be fond of": cs: mít rád; "be fond of": de: gern haben, hängen an, mögen, lieben (see the current entry, not yet deleted). The form "fond" as representing "be fond of" makes translation hard. It is a bit like for the sake of, which could probably somehow be documented in sake. Indeed, OneLook dictionaries tend to exclude "for the sake of": . Needless to say, OneLook dictionaries are mostly monolingual dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers." Not necessarily outside of CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also rather Keep it as a translation target. The alternative would be to put the translations under the adjective POS of fond, which might be confusing. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and improve fond:. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to, and improve, [[fond]]. (Actually, DCDuring has already done most of the necessary improvement.) —Ruakh TALK 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirected. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. --Anatoli (обсудить) 10:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to fond of or fond. 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to fond. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)