Talk:point at

point at
SOP, not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a phrasal verb. Consider: "Which career will you point him at?"  When the "preposition" and complement of the "preposition" can be inverted like this, there may be a phrasal verb at work.  In this particular case, though, I'd like other opinions, since the trait is not universal for phrasal verbs. --EncycloPetey 15:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think you might be misparsing that sentence. I think it's "{Which career}i will you point himj at ___i?"; as in, I think what we're seeing is normal Wh-movement with P-stranding, rather than a phrasal verb with a noun complement preceding the particle. —Ruakh TALK 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. It's early and somehting just didn't seem right to me.  You've sorted it out though. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite idiomatic, but a set phrase. I imagine many translations will use transitive verbs with no preposition, so it is useful from that point of view. Widsith 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Much as I support phrasal verbs wherever I can, I have to admit that this seems to be SOP. Phrasal verbs are a lot clearer when the particle is adverbial. In this case, the above example could also be "... point him to or towards. It seems to be a preposition of movement / direction. I cannot find any other dictionary giving point at as a phrasal verb either. Algrif 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the fact that the above example cannot be rephrased using a long noun phrase to replace the pronoun "him" leaving "point" followed immediately by "at" would seem to demonstrate that "point at" is not a phrasal verb. (I am aware that this test is not conclusive, BTW.) Algrif 11:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a phrasal verb. Delete and exemplify at point. DAVilla 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I would be fine with that. But I don't see the consistency, given such entries as look at.  Widsith 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've rfd'd that too. Algrif 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm convinced on this discussion that point at is not idiomatic, and reverse my opinion to agree we should delete it. However, this entry is not analogous to look at, as I've noted below. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)