Talk:business trip

business trip

 * We should deport this word back to Durango. Lucifer (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 13:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, you could but that is not what people understand the term to mean. I rescind my nomination.
 * Keep, if only for the translations. Furthermore, if I did not know what this referred to, I would have thought it was a company outing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. SoP. And the definition is not right either - I can go on a business trip tomorrow but that doesn't necessarily mean the expenses are paid by an employer. I could just be going on a trip on my own accord for some random business opportunity. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Above comment unsigned by Luciferwildcat at 03:25 on 6 April 2012. Striking as withdrawn. DAVilla 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unstriking, nominations shouldn't be rescinded when there's a fairly even debate going on. Or if you want to think of it another way, I'm tagging it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep common collocation. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So is lives there. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anatoli (обсудить) 10:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * road trip: and field trip: are more common at COCA than business trip. The following at 3/4 to 1/3 as common: return trip, fishing trip, camping trip, day trip, shopping trip, ski trip, and side trip.
 * Such English noun-noun compounds are sometimes viewed as being construed with a preposition. The term using fishing, camping, shopping, and ski(ing) (?) are construed with for:. Perhaps ski trip and return trip could be considered as being construed with to:. Side trip and road trip might be construed with on (the) and field trip with into (the). The "for" construction may be the most common on this kind of construction. I would have thought this needed lexical entries the least and would require the largest number to cover common instances. DCDuring TALK 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A construal with on: would justify the "often" clause in the definition.
 * Most English noun-noun compounds have one significantly more common "prepositional" interpretation of this kind. The logic often invoked to defend these by Dan P. would apply to all such compounds. Moreover, there is no convenient way to confirm that one construal is more common than another, unless the difference in frequency is truly overwhelming. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Our current definition is "Travel for business purposes, often paid for at least partially by the employer". The "often..." part, inasmuch as it is an "often..." part, is not part of the definition of the term, but a mere random fact about the term's referent. (One could as well say "often including a airplane flight".) (That needs to be cleaned up.) So our current definition really is then just "Travel for business purposes", which seems SOP to me. Could it theoretically mean something else that it pretty much never does, taking it out of SOPland? Not that I can think of. Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)