Talk:phrasal preposition

Waltter Silva

 * I created this entry "phrasal preposition" because it is, no doubt about it, an expression (more precisely a "collocation")(see also [collocation in the Wikipedia]) which does exist in the English language. So much so that there are equivalent translations to it in all languagues of the world. Besides, it is a grammar term, a branch for the part of speech preposition. If it is supposed to be deleted, I think the same action must be taken in relation to the Portuguese translation locução prepositiva, and all other eventually existing pages which are also translations to "phrasal preposition". Why do it only in relation to the English expression (collocation)?


 * Anyway, I did not understand why this page was nominated for deletion. Is there any rule I ignore about deletions here in the Wiktionary? I see no reason why some expressions may and others may not be created here. I noticed that "Collocation" was replaced by "Noun". No expression (a sequence of two or more words) may be considered as "noun" or any other part of speech (adjective, adverb etc). And how about the related expression prepositional phrase. Will it also be nominated for deletion?


 * There are many expressions here which were created only for the sake of translations in foreign languages, which I think is a good idea. Nevertheless, this is not the case for "phrasal preposition", since it is a grammar term. So, why ignore grammar?


 * Thus, a phrasal preposition may not be considered as a preposition. Likewise, a phrasal adverb is not exactly the same as an adverb. This is the kind of grammar mistake I am now trying to correct here. In other words, an expression may not be categorized as a single-word part of speech. I prefer to discuss all this openly, instead of doing it anonimously. Thank you all in advance. Waltter Manoel da Silva wten 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your points in order:
 * You say it's a common collocation. Even if it is, we do not have all collocations, or else things like put down the pen (more common, according to Google, than phrasal preposition) would be allowed also.
 * If it is a grammar term, then the request-for-deletion discussion will discover that and it will probably be kept per WT:IDIOM.
 * Yes, if it's to be deleted, then probably translations will go the same way, though maybe not: each can be evaluated on its own merits.
 * Collocations can only have entries if they are idiomatic: see WT:CFI.
 * Perhaps "noun" is not the best term for it, but that's what we call it here on English Wiktionary anyway. if you wish to change that, please raise the issue at WT:BP.
 * I hope that this helps.—msh210 ℠  18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Waltter's opinions - 02

 * Every collocation, whether idiomatic or not, never ceases to be a collocation, even though the majority of collocations are idiomatic ones. But as for "phrasal preposition", it a collocation which is an idiom, at least in relations to the Portuguese and the English languages: we do not say "preposição frasal" (literal translation for "phrasal preposition" in Portuguese), as well as we do not say "preposition collocation" (literal trans of this expression in English). But anyway, the category "Collocations" does not exist here. I also see no logical point in the fact that in a would-be category, as, for example, "Portuguese collocations", only idiomatic collocations would be included in categorizations, mainly due to the fact that most English-speaking people would not know the literal translations in foreign languages, in order to decide if it is or not an idiom;


 * As for an expression (collocation, phrase, sentence) to be named as a "noun", it is plain to see it is wrong, since sentences are not parts of speech. It would be more logical to name it as "phrase" (“English phrases”), a general name for "expression", which is an idea expressed by a sequence of two or more words.


 * Besides, if the page "phrasal preposition" is deleted, how will foreigners be able to translate it to their languages here in the Wiktionary?. This line of thought leads the Wiktionary to be incomplete at least when it comes to translations of English sentences into foreign languages. And is it advantageous to any dictionary to be incomplete?


 * Another disadvantage for existing illogical limits to creations of phrases (no matter which particular names they may have: expression, collocation, phrase, sentence, idiom etc) is that this practice makes it more difficult to find some expressions here and their eventual translations. As for me, it would never cross my mind to look for expressions under names of parts of speech (noun, adjective, preposition etc). It would be the same as looking for geography terms under the chemistry category. Waltter Manoel da Silva wten 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate
SoP.—msh210 ℠  17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See also talk:phrasal preposition.—msh210 ℠  18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to the delete position. Although the term locuzione preposizionale: exists in Italian, it is quite rare and I only found it by researching it. All the translations are best translated as two words phrasal: preposition: rather than the single term. SemperBlotto 07:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * locution prépositive:, however, is very common in French (Because french dictionary define strictly graphic words, we are obsessive what is a word and was is a "locution") and I'd be inclined to say it's not SoP, but it certainly is in English. Circeus 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Needs a better definition, but keep. Hardly anyone will understand what it means from the separate words. —Stephen 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why isn't this called a "compound preposition" in analogy to compound noun? (And why are we missing the latter when we do have compound word?) Easily confused with prepositional phrase as well, which is no less SoP in my opinion. I think it's safer to keep. DAVilla 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As DAVilla almost points out, the term undefined: exists as well, with the same meaning (and, in fact, is several times as common). If undefined: were a term of art that had driven out other potential synonyms, then perhaps it would be worth including; but as it is, it seems to be just one SOP way to express this idea. (Of course, I welcome any contrary evidence that would force me to reconsider.) However, we do need to improve our entry for phrasal:. —Ruakh TALK 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sense now added to [[phrasal]].—msh210 ℠  20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tend to say keep; rare yes but it does exist. Mglovesfun 09:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 months later, kept as no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)