Talk:mind you

Tea room discussion
This says it's an adverb. Is that really the best way to look at this expression in its parenthetical usage? Also, its usage note refers to a "non-idiomatic" usage that seems to much a relic to really be so and seems to need a definition. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an adverb in current speech, yes, just as however, for what it's worth, incidentally, etc., but it is typically restricted to the beginning of a sentence. The second (non-idiomatic) sense on the page looks like sum of parts to me.  I agree that the second sense does not belong there, altough I might be worth having in a Usage notes section because there seems to have been a historical shift in use, just as we found in researching for what it's worth. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the American Corpus, it certainly is not "restricted to the beginning of a sentence". Quite the constrary, it seems to have pretty much the same distribution as "however", except it is a bit more informal. Circeus 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the 2 usage examples for incidentally, the first is indisputably an adverb. In the second usage, it seems to be merely a conversational directive, which, I thought, would make it an interjection in that usage. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2016
Sense "Mind that you; be careful that you." Not a phrase or unit of meaning but a fragment. Originally raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/December#mind_you


 * Delete. Note that the creator put a hidden "HTML comment" in the entry: "not sure whether this is a collocation or just a plain old SoP, but per TR, it's better here than in usage notes for a missing sense". Equinox ◑ 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace with or even just  . A similar usex is provided in the verb section of .— Pingkudimmi 07:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you explain your reasoning a bit more? mind is a unit in itself, but mind you is a bit like stop the or was near: it's not a self-contained grammatical unit and the same reasoning may not apply. For example, at "go in", we would not include an &lit sense like "it's your go in this Scrabble game". Equinox ◑ 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete. I was succumbing to a foolish line of thinking.— Pingkudimmi 13:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes delete that sense. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete this SOP sense per nom. bd2412 T 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)