Talk:depend on

RFD discussion: September 2013–July 2014
Looks like depend + on. Wonderfool's definition, in any case, is lousy. -WF
 * Some lemmings view it as a phrasal-verb idiom. Is it? Well, it depends. If we view it-phrases as idioms and ignore the legal and literary meanings, then there may be no common current use of depend that is not always followed by on (or upon). Duplicating the meanings or cross-referencing/linking are possibilities. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Week keep. Google Books gives more than a hundred results: [//www.google.com/search?q=%22depended+on+by%22&tbm=bks depended on by], [//www.google.com/search?q=%22depended+upon+by%22&tbm=bks depended upon by]. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; I looked at the TAKASUGI Shinji search above; my comment to it is that "Loan funds depended on by tenants of Drumquin" means "loan funds on which tenants of Drumquin depend". Surely not all verb + preposition combinations are phrasal verbs; this does not seem to be one. "complain about" is similar in the construction; check . The form is " is complained about by ", a passive form of " complains about ". However, bring about is a phrasal verb, IMHO. For reference: ; none of the leading non-Wordnet dictionaries is there. By contrast, shows Collins, Macmillan and Merriam-Webster. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how thus us any different from rely on. bd2412 T 02:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2017
If we have rely on, hinge on, lean on, count on, bank on, hang one's hat on, draw on, plan on, and base on, bottom on, etc., why don't we have depend on? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Or conversely, .... DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Or conversely, yes. --Barytonesis (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To "depend on" is adequately explained in the article on "depend" (senses 1 & 2). --Hekaheka (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What I keep noticing is that we have a lot of entries showing a lack of understanding of the types of verb ("go on" is a set phrase in the way that "struggle on" isn't). It almost suggests that, heaven forbid, we should require some level of expertise. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the verb can be used in essentially the same sense without "on" then the "verb + on" sense should be listed under the verb, and if not then it should be listed separately. For example, I can't think that the verb "count" is really used in the sense of "count on" without "on", so "count on" probably should be kept. Mihia (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we simply follow the practice of one of the comprehensive dictionaries of English phrasal verbs. That would err a bit toward inclusion for the more common combinations. In the past we have had strong advocates of including virtually any verb+particle collocation and consequently probably have too many of them. Some could be converted to redirects to the entry for the verb, especially if the verb has the combination in a usage example and something like "often used with on" in one or more labels. DCDuring (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Referring to McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs (Spears, 2004), it has entries for both depend on and count on. shows they are not alone, but some of the dictionaries seem to have depend on as a redirect to depend, with a label such as I suggested above. A couple more dictionaries cover . DCDuring (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I fear I have not been very consistent on this point across discussions, I essentially agree with erring "toward inclusion for the more common combinations". Mihia (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)