Talk:transitive verb with animate object

Request for deletion
Can't wait to here how this one's supposed to be "idiomatic". --Yair rand 07:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I might have just deleted on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to [[transitive animate]]. —Ruakh TALK 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [[transitive animate]] is idiomatic? --Yair rand 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. You don't think so? I could never have guessed its meaning from its parts; could you have? —Ruakh TALK 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's SoP. There's a decent chance we're missing the sense from animate. --Yair rand 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What sense could have that would make  SOP? “ Taking an animate direct object”? Except then, wouldn't we say “animate transitive verb”? I think our sense-4 of  is exactly the relevant one (though IMHO we should split it into two senses, one for words/phrases that have referents and one for words/phrases that merely agree with words/phrases that have referents), but it's still not enough to make it clear what  means. Or, for that matter, what  means. —Ruakh TALK 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the thing is, we don't normally move a page to an unrelated page name. If it's bad caps or a missing apostrophe, sure. If I moved i.e. to id est that would seem like a really sneaky move to me. Just start a page for intransitive animate: and delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually sounds like we need the noun . Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)