Talk:standoff

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Current definitions for verb don't look like verbs to me. RJFJR 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's an error. As you suggest, forms like standoffed and standoffing would be absurd. I've removed some mistaken verbs of this kind in the past. Having said that, standoffing appears once in Google Books, and user:DCDuring stood up in support of standby as a verb, so I suppose you never know! Equinox 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see any way to use this as a verb except to take it apart into "stand off". -- Pinkfud 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not this one -yet - afaict. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created stand off with correct definitions. This supposed verbal form of what is generally accepted as a noun is a no-no for me. It would need some pretty convincing cites to support the definitions given. I'm not searching, as I believe the search will be a futile waste of time. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We seriously need the nautical usage(s) for stand/stood/stands, stand off, stand into. The cruiser stood into the harbour. The harbour was blockaded by two British frigates standing off the coast. (and that is a verb of course ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest and add them. I had not thought about these, to be honest. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be strictly descriptivist, I think it's clear that many speakers write the bare forms of many intransitive verb-particle idioms without any space or hyphen; for example, "please login" gets >50 MGhits (raw), even though "he logined|loginned" gets <60 (real) and "he loggedin" gets <20 (real). In the case at hand, google books:"designed to standoff" (for example) pulls up three distinct non-scanno verb uses. However, we're not strictly descriptivist; we do have some concept of "misconstruction" or "misspelling". So, how do we want to handle this? Is it a misspelling? (If so, I don't think it's common enough to be included.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The inflected forms are, um, rare. Is [[standoff]] just an alternative spelling of [[stand off]], with a note that it doesn't inflect? or categorised as a defective verb? It wouldn't be unreasonable to indicate it as non-standard too. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section. Please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. To keep this from being rechallenged or "corrected", should we also have a usage note? The inflection-line could be missed of taken as an error. I don't think the talk page copy of this discussion is enough to prevent a repeat. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it. I put it in a template, because it applies to a lot of these idioms, but that may not have been the right decision. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking, since no one seems to object to the current resolution. (If anyone wants to re-RFV this for actual cites, they should feel free.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)