Talk:go off

Shouldn't this be phrasial verb? --Connel MacKenzie 08:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The term is "phrasal verb" with no "i". But I've been under the impression that we're sticking to the "basic" set of parts-of-speech inherited from Latin grammar, as discussed elsewhere. A phrasal verb is still a verb and if we're going to distinguish types such as "phrasal verb" we should also also distinguish types like "determiner" which has been reverted a couple of times recently on the grounds of sticking to the basic parts of speech.


 * Also, apparently the term "phrasal verb" is ambiguous and is used in various ways. See the Wikipedia article and its talk page. &mdash; Hippietrail 14:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 Part of our problem here is that almost all words are ambiguous and used in various ways. It may be prescriptive, but we're going to have to have our own precise definitions for wiktionary terminology (i.e., wiktionary jargon), even if it means giving a few pages to explain _exactly_ what something like "phrasal verb" means within the context of the wiktionary. 


 * I am in favour of having our own terminology, or at least symbols. All sizable dictionaries have something of this nature, because it is almost unavoidable. I think we should take a pragmatic approach though. We should stick with just noun, verb, adjective, etc in the major heading. Below that we can provide more technical details for those who are interested.


 * Also note that there are sub-types of phrasal verbs which will be useful to note for learners of English. When a phrasal verb with an adjectival particle is transitive, the particle can sometimes be separated, and sometimes not. &mdash; Hippietrail 00:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible missing sense
Chambers 1908 defines it as "to die; to fade". Equinox ◑ 01:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

go off half-cocked
How should go off half-cocked be analyzed? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)