Talk:can do without

RFC
Note the RFC discussion at Talk:could do without. — Beobach 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC 2
I am not at all sure that the inflection line is right (Is 'be able' to be considered a suppletive?). I don't understand the definition, which might be an attempt to mimic the defining style of some of the learner's dictionaries. It isn't a style we much use. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just an indirect way of saying "don't want", presumably as a way of underplaying the conflict. I'm not sure if we have a template for such cases. The current definition adds unnecessary qualifiers and has the common failing of describing the term rather than defining it. As for the headword: how do we normally deal with defective verbs? I notice that may omits the headword altogether, in order to avoid giving an infinitive form that's not supposed to exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've cleaned up the definition and trimmed the headword line to more closely resemble that of "can do with". - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck the header so that this section will be archived the next time someone trawls through this page looking for sections to archives, rather than left here forever and sent to the "unsresolved" archives. Feel free to unstrike the header if you want to continue this discussion. - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this not a case of being the sum of its parts? Tharthan (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe. That's a question for WT:RFD, so I'll open up a section there. I'll list all of "can do without", "can do with", "could do without", etc, because I assume they're equally idiomatic or equally SOP. - -sche (discuss) 17:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion debate
See Talk:can do with. bd2412 T 12:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)