Talk:y'go

RFD discussion: December 2018–February 2019
You go (girl!). I see this as SoP despite the lack of a space. Another one that can easily be found in GBooks is "y'want". Equinox ◑ 00:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean that this is SOP to y' go. We should be adding pronunciation information to y', in that case. bd2412 T 03:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * F'goodness' sake! Jus' 'bout any (unaccented) syll'ble can be 'lided- y'want us t'have entries fr'all those forms? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I say that? No, I did not. I suggested adding pronunciation information to y (which generally appears to be pronounced like a /jɜ/ or a clipped /ē/ in all of these formulations). With respect to forms we do include, which happens to include jus' and 'bout, obviously they need to be attested. I actually have an additional concern about y'go, which is that we have an existing entry for ygo, and I consider it useful to have entries for such variations to avoid confusion with the existing unpunctuated word. There is no parallel to this for syllble, lided, frall, fgoodness, or ywant. We do have thave, but t'have doesn't appear to be attested. bd2412 T' 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It takes a lot o' effort t'allow ye t'see me as such" (The Hill Witch, J J Christopher). Equinox ◑ 15:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Find two more citations spanning a year, and you'll have something that meets the CFI, as currently written. I don't know that three citations can be found for y'go, which leads me to think that sending this to RfV would have been a cleaner solution (or at least a cleaner first step). bd2412 T 15:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, but it'd be nice if we had some policy that helped us distinguish contractions like this from ones like he's, as far as determining which ones to keep vs delete. (See Beer_parlour/2018/December. - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On further examination, delete, as a I have made a diligent search and found no instances of use of this word in Google Books. I have found numerous instances of "y' go", with a space between, but none without, after going through pages and pages of false positives. This experience frankly reinforces my sense that this would have been better dealt with as an RfV matter. bd2412 T 03:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, one must keep a low profile with censored and elided forms, see, see what Chuck Entz said. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep in RFD; delete via RFV if not attested. We have y'all and y'know. The usual standard for separate components (WT:SOP, "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components") is space separated, and, less unanimously, hyphen separated. No serious attempt has been made to refute the hypothesis that the requirement of attestation prevents overflood. On the other hand, we could only keep the most commons combinations involving elisions; see also ; t'allow is not in GNV at all and y'go is rather rare, compared to y'all and y'know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. Regarding the proposal to keep in RfD, I am confident that if CFI-worthy citations supporting the existence of this contraction were to be found, I would have found them in my search. bd2412 T 22:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that as long that the result is a RFD-proxy-deleted for virtual RFV. Either way, there is a consensus for deletion, and so it is fine to delete the entry anyway via RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)