Talk:possessed of

RFC discussion: December 2011–January 2013
Listed as an adj. Seems like a preposition to me, but I'm not sure enough to make the change. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's actually a constituent; "possessed of X" is actually "possessed {of X}". This sense of the adjective (or active past participle?) uses the preposition  to construe its mandatory complement, but that doesn't make "possessed of" into a syntactic unit. But if we have to assign it a part of speech, I agree with you that "preposition" is probably closer. —Ruakh TALK 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no reason we have to. We can use  etc. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like "phrase" implies "constituent" even more than "adjective" or "preposition" does . . . —Ruakh TALK 14:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my enthusiasm nearly four years ago, I had extracted this from the entry for possessed. User:Frous thought it should be a redirect to possessed, but I reverted the change. Now, I think Frous was on the right track. Perhaps a usage example or citations should illustrate this at possessed, if not a specific sense (already present) for this somewhat archaic construction. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, and Ruakh's comments (22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC), just above) argue for that, too, though I don't know that that was his intent. Anyone object to making it a hard redirect? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)