Talk:short for

RFD discussion: August 2022–January 2023
Seems SOP, same kind of as in "English for", "German for" etc. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And ? Clearly different. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion. Vininn126 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Better with a syntax or collocation template. Vininn126 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being allegedly SoP doesn't seem to be the real reason. Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/August DonnanZ (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 09:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Worth noting that "short" is a noun here, which has been somewhat obscured by the fact that it's preserved in this set expression. This could (and should) be treated at (perhaps already is, I didn't look – edit I looked, it's not); whether we need this entry as well I'm ambivalent on. Ƿidsiþ 14:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced - seems like a predicative adjective. You might say " and are short for do not and cannot", but you wouldn't say they are "shorts" for them. Theknightwho (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm about 99% sure it's still an adjective here. Vininn126 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lexico calls it a phrase, which I accept, it's good enough for me. But I take "short" itself to be an adjective, as in "short form", the short form of. DonnanZ (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At least historically, it was a noun here. In fact one used to say "it's a/the short for…". I suppose as the article has disappeared, it's been reinterpreted as an adjective, but it doesn't entirely make sense as an adjective (to me). As you say, it's more like a stand-in for the noun phrase "short form". Ƿidsiþ 06:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are entries for (noun, created in 2004), and  (adjective) - Lexico lists the adjective short-form. The noun would probably fail COALMINE on a technicality, but it's still valuable as an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, this does not seem to be an obvious construction as a sum of parts. bd2412 T 07:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion (WT:VP). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)