Talk:from on high

from on high
= [[from]] + [[on high]]. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not, since in Webster's Dictionary (ref in the article) it is written: From high, from on high, from a high place, from an upper region, or from heaven., therefore on is dispensable. Bogorm 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why we have on high as an entry. It is a set phrase or a relic of an earlier, more general way of constructing meaning. From, as a preposition, can be used with numerous words and phrase, both modern and antiquated. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete, SoP.—msh210 ℠ 07:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, keep - the fact that both from on high and from high are possible and have a different meaning from the expected, refutes the supposition about "from + on high" and makes me disprove this proposition. Bogorm 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1828 dictionary entry provides a long list of usage examples with adverbs, like "on high". The multiple forms on the same line are broadly parallel, not definitions of "from on high". They present the long list as an extended usage note for "from". DCDuring TALK 13:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm trying to see Bogorm's POV, but I really think that "from on high" means "from" + "on high". The fact that "from high" means the same thing might (or might not) be an argument for a "from high" entry, but it is not argument for "from on high". (The reference to Webster's confuses me. By my reading, Webster's is glossing "from high" as "from on high, from a high place, from an upper region, or from heaven". I'm not sure why that would be considered an argument for "from on high" but not for "from a high place", "from an upper region", or "from heaven".) —Ruakh TALK 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Weak keep since on high is an adverb and cannot be combined in this way under regular grammatical rules. DAVilla 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And why isn't it marked as an adverb? (On high I mean.) DAVilla 07:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was previously ambivalent about the issue, but DAVilla's argument has swayed me.  --EncycloPetey 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the substance of the elliptical argument. Is DAVilla saying that from on high is different from from above? Is he saying that "from above" should be an entry? DCDuring TALK 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that from above deserves an entry, but we might also need a usage note at from, since it does not follow the usual rules expected of prepositions. The word from can take objects that are adverb/prepositions of direction, and by that I mean the object (when not a noun) must be a word usable as both an adverb and a preposition as well as indicating direction.  That said, not all such combinations with from ought to have entries, since some of them have no truly idiomatic meaning.  DAVilla's argument swayed me, but only because the combined expression is also idiomatic.  Yes, on high as a separate component has the same idiomaticity, but I can't see how to easily explain at the entry for from that it is one of the preposition/adverbs of direction usable with that word. --EncycloPetey 03:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All of this seems to result from there being no grammatical PoS assigned to "on high", which shows only the "Idioms" header. It would seem to be a noun (like "here" and "above"), rarely used as a subject. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hadn't considered that. I also found "from on board..." common in Google books. Not sure what to make of this right now. DAVilla 04:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Common and ambiguous enough to merit an entry. Think of the foreigners! bd2412 T 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DAVilla. In detailed rephrasing of DAVilla's argument: Admittedly, it looks sum-of-partish per the existence of on high. However, by expansion, from "from on high" I get "from in the sky or the heavens", with the extraneous "in" after "from". I would also support the from above entry. --Dan Polansky 10:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Note: I've replaced the definition with, because the definition given was actually a fragment of Webster's gloss for undefined:, and I don't think it's perfectly applicable to from on high:. —Ruakh TALK 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)