Talk:and so on and so forth

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

[[and so on]] + [[and so forth]], two members of Category:English coordinates. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete this. There's no doubt that you can chain together quite a lot of these, like with adverbs. SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say keep, but neither CFI nor OneLook supports me; the term can be understood from its parts.

Some Google searches for the interested:

• google:"and so on and so forth" - 17,600,000 hits
• google:"and so on and so on" - 89,200,000 hits
• google:"and so forth and so forth" - 7,710,000 hits

--Dan Polansky 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"and so on and so forth" is more euphonious to my ears than other combinations of coordinates, but it is not set and its meanings is deducible from its parts. It surprised me how many of these coordinating-conjunction + phrase expressions seem to be idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are now 32 members of Category:English coordinates. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More and less euphonious combinations

From COCA:

1. and so on + and so forth 259
2. and so forth + and so on 75
3. and so on + and so on 73 (includes 5)
4. and so forth + and so forth 2
5. and so on + and so on + and so on 3

This is information of most modest value, of a type that Wiktionary rarely includes. DCDuring TALK 01:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

and so on and so forth

User:Type56op9 (really You-Know-Who) added this even though it previously failed rfd after a discussion in late 2009. Isn't that a no-no? -- · (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. RFD-failed entries need an “RFD” to be undeleted. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Endorse speedy deletion of previously RfD'd content. bd2412 T 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort added this? Cool! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Shh! WF's hard enough to deal with without giving him ideas... Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep aka restore. Well, it was RFD-deleted in October 2009 (Talk:and so on and so forth), but I am not sure it should have been, since it looks like a fine entry for our phrasebook; this is very much a set phrase. In that RFD discussion, I did not vote in boldface since I did not realize there was a phrasebook allowance in WT:CFI back then; it was only after I nominated "I love you" in February 2010 (Talk:I love you#Deletion_debate_.282.29) that it became very clear that we did have phrasebook allowance in the WT:CFI. google:"and so on and so forth" finds it in multiple dictionaries. dict.cc gives two German translations that I recognize as valid and perfectly suited to "and so on and so forth": "etc. pp." (from my memory, "et cetera pe pe"), and "und so weiter und so fort" (I heared it often). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We already have entries for and so on and and so forth. This is merely a combination of the two that adds nothing to their individual definitions. I think it is like the phrase "out of touch and behind the times", which is attested but merely combines repetitions of more or less the same idea. bd2412 T 14:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for the decoding direction, the phrase is transparent. As is I love you. It is the encoding direction that matters. The second argument I made was with respect to translation target, keeping in mind that Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary. In German, you say google:"und so weiter und so fort" but you fairly rarely say google:"und so fort und so weiter". It is a unit whose parts get glued together in the mind as one lexical item, at least in my mind. Of course, German "etc. pp." is just intransparent and deserves an entry anyway. As for google books:"out of touch and behind the times", it does not seem very phrasey with its 31 Google books hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not undelete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Msh210: was that a vote or a closure? — Keφr 07:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A vote (per nom and bd2412).​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed as resolved, consensus remains in favor of deletion. bd2412 T 15:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)