Talk:be ill

be ill
This has been redlinked from ill since 2004, but surely it's just ? Is there an idiomatic meaning? Keith the Koala (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ƿidsiþ 12:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I haven't heard of any idiomatic meaning. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for nominator's reason. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412 T 14:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted on the basis of clear consensus. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not good. Deletion on the same day as the nomination. Can you please restore the page so that I can see whether it is a good translation target? In Czech, we say churavět and that means be ill. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The entry didn't have any translations, and it was created the same day that it was deleted. Its entire content when it was deleted was:


 * (For attribution, the authors were NicciRicci, Keith the Koala, and Kiwima.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The entry would get translations easily and quickly, if restored. It's idiomatic in a number of languages, especially Slavic, see also Russian (the Czech was mentioned above). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stative verbs are very rare in English and much more common in a lot of other languages. Can you think of any adjective in Chinese, for instance, that wouldn't be translatable in English as "be" + an adjective? This entry is just the tip of a continent-sized iceberg, and would set a precedent for a massive new class of SOP translation-target stubs. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your concern is understood but it has been generally agreed that for languages where adjectives are ALSO verbs, adjectives are simply treated as adjectives only. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese adjectives include the sense "to be" such and such. See also [[carrying pole]], which may be considered an SoP but it has too many idiomatic translations to be ignored. Besides, "carrying pole" has some cultural significance, an item as common as bucket, spoon, door, which should be included for that reason alone. See also [[be born]] and [[older brother]]. These are all special, not regular cases. I don't see any continent-sized iceberg here. Do I make sense? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, I think translations can be added to be sick (sense 1). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never understood why translations have to point to a single entry; why can't the translation of churavět point to be ill? Keith the Koala (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that there are lots of words in other languages that mean "be ill", and some editors want an English entry to house a ====Translations==== section that lists them. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept the point made above that be sick can host translations. But be ill seems to be a better host since be sick has more senses, and the sense "Used other than as an idiom: be sick" itself seems to cover multiple senses, including "to be tired of"--"to have had enough". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Keith the Koala: That does not cover the use case where you want to traverse from Czech to Russian, using the English entry as a middle man or hub. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely it's the job of Russian Wiktionary or Czech Wiktionary, not English Wiktionary, to enable Czech-to-Russian translation? --Tropylium (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)