Talk:halt

I've moved one of the noun definitions; it was under the wrong etymology. Moonraker12 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

PS There's also a definition at Halt: Is that correct? Shouldn't they be together? Moonraker12 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate
Interjection sense. Isn't it just the verb, imperative? &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, delete unless someone can find a reason not to. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, sense is already at halt, Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It has since been readded, and I think correctly. The imperative can be "halt" or "halte", as well as "haltet" (plural) and "halten Sie" (polite), but the interjection is always "halt!" whomever you address. So that's already sufficient reason in my opinion. Beyond this, I'm not sure if speakers generally interpret it as an imperative at all. Of course, it's originally an imperative, but speakers may rather think of it as a use of the noun. In fact, in military commands "Halt!" is the opposite of "Marsch!", which latter is clearly a noun.

bring to a halt
We have bring to an end, what about bring to a halt? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Offensive?
An offensive term meaning to have difficulty in walking (archaic) --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)