Talk:nearhand

RFV discussion
I don't understand the logic of this being analyzed as a preposition rather than an adverb. It might be more compelling if there were citations that showed it in use followed by a simple noun as an object rather than preceded by a word like "there", which is the only candidate for object AFAICT. The citation given is also for nerehonde:, not the headword. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now cited more fully. I think it's fairly well-established practice that spelling variants can (and should) illustrate the lemma form as well as the specific form in question. Otherwise half our words would seem to spring into existence a couple of hundred years ago. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2 new citations seem perfect. I still don't see that the post-positioned use has to be a preposition rather than an adverb. Were post-positioned prepositions common in Early Modern English or in Middle English? It would seem suspect if the only instances of postpositioned use were after words, like "there", analyzable as adverbs. It might be worth noting something about postpositioned prepositions, especially if there are peculiarities to EME or some other vintages of English, both in a usage note and possibly in an Appendix on EME. (WP's EME article doesn't cover this.) I wouldn't be surprised to find others who share my botheration at this. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could probably interpret it as an adverb in that sentence if you wanted. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 06:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV passed. Was de-tagged by Ƿidsiþ when he added the cites, and DCDuring seems satisfied. (Yes?) —Ruakh TALK 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)