Talk:zu viel

zu viel
NISOP, +. Then again, I don't understand why English deserves an entry, apart from the informal adjective and the interjection senses (which both don't exist for zu viel). Note that there's an obsolete spelling which should probably stay. Longtrend 10:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep per WT:COALMINE -- Liliana • 12:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I haven't thought about this. I'd still like to know whether the adverb and noun senses of too much are appropriate and if so, why. Longtrend 13:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, both [[too much]] and [[too much]] are lexicalizations of grammatical structures.
 * The noun case is clearest to me: it is a fused-head construction. The "missing" noun is clear from context. In almost all (all?) cases "much" alone would be grammatically acceptable, but "too" is a very common collocation. Maybe "toomuch" will become the spelling eventually.
 * The adverb case is similar. After a sometimes-transitive verb sense it could be readily analyzed as a fused head. After an always-intransitive verb sense, perhaps not.
 * From a presentation point of view, for monolingual users, especially in English, we often find it necessary to provide NISoP PoS sections in the same spirit as . If we didn't have provide them users would probably add them anyway. DCDuring TALK 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I'm not sure I understood all of it (do you think we should have too little too, then?), but the discussion should be led anywhere else anyway. I'm convinced that zu viel is valid, so I'm striking. Longtrend 16:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I could be clearer. But the presentation rationale does not apply to too little as there is not PoS for which is as clearly idiomatic as too much. (Sometimes even that doesn't seem entryworthy to me.) I think the rationale for too little is the same as for too much: possibly for its use with intransitive verbs.
 * Also, the separate PoSes could be combined under a Determiner header, though that might make NISoPitude of the collocation more apparent. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [#too_much Old discussion.] &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy, is my memory getting bad, or what? Hmmmm. Not fully closed? [[too little]] deleted. (Pun alert.) But the matter included some senses, at least, of [[too much]]. Was the scope not clear? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)