Talk:stay behind

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

stay behind[edit]

The most literal intransitive sense of stay + a semi-spatial sense of behind. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Like leave behind, fall behind. It's a phrasal verb. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that? I hope you're not relying on it's category membership. Focusing on this entry, there is no change of sense. Stay and behind have exactly the required definitions. Other free-standing adverbials can replace behind. Linger and remain are synonyms. Even more tellingly, one can find expressions like "stay three paces behind.", "staying close/far behind", which modification is not considered possible for a particle in a phrasal verb. DCDuring TALK 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after a research, to me it's idiomatic, especially in this sense (per OED): "remain in a classroom or school at the end of teaching, especially to receive punishment". (Don't synonyms confirm that this is a word?) The 2nd definition should be changed but it's not SoP. I'm changing my vote from "strong keep" to keep and redefine, it's still keep but for a different reason. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the existing definition: "To remain where one is, whilst others leave.", it doesn't even convey the meaning of these words as they are used (whether or not is a phrasal verb in this sense. "Staying behind" does not restrict someone's mobiity to a place. It only means that one is not on the journey with whoever left. And obviously it is not just "others", it is one's travel companions or some other social group with which one is affiliated, often merely temporarily as at a meeting.
Also, I would like more opinions on this and possibly more citations. The use of measure terms of distance doesn't seem to occur with the use in the sense of "remaining while one's companions leave", but rather when one is maintaining some kind of separation while on more or less the same journey. DCDuring TALK 04:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge and Macmillan dictionaries give the current meaning of the verb. Cambridge: to not leave a place when other people leave. Are these dictionaries not respectable enough, now that we have three? I don't see significant difference of the term from come in, go out, take away, etc. etc. Most of them don't change the sense of the main verb + adverb and they are still words. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ƿidsiþ 05:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These dictionaries aren't wrong, they just include it because their criteria for inclusion our different to ours. I think we have to ask who we are helping by including these. To me, this would be another case of including something for our own pleasure despite the fact it's not useful for anyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not a native speaker, then the definition is helpful (this is after all a non-literal use of (deprecated template usage) behind). If you are a native speaker, you might want to know how long it has been used in English, or how to translate it. Ƿidsiþ 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the criteria you advance, we could and should dispense with CFI altogether, because the reasoning might apply to any collocation, even if the result was a non-constituent or, indeed, had no coherence at all.
By the non-native speaker criterion you suggest, any collocation using anything other than the most physical of senses for one of its terms would need an entry. We don't even have translations tables for a large number of our existing universally accepted idiom entries, let alone a full set of translations, not to mention the entries that don't even have correct English definitions. From this lamentable state you would have us include even more collocational entries of at best disputed idiomaticity? DCDuring TALK 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anatoli: To the extent that they do not change sense in some usage and do not otherwise show the particle to be restricted in its movement, the definitions in the other purported phrasal verbs should be challenged. There are a huge number of valid phrasal verbs, often with multiple phrasal definitions. I see no reason to complicate the entries by including SoP definitions as well.
Perhaps once we have decent translation coverage for our existing truly idiomatic senses of truly idiomatic terms, we can reconsider our inclusion criteria. By that time we might even have figured out some workable approach to having a phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The understanding of what is truly SoP and what is idomatic is very subjective and I don't think your tests above are valid (like inserting words in between also works for truly idiomatic verbs). I believe stay behind is idiomatic, it's not a free collocation or SoP (and so is stay back but given the current obsession with deletions, I won't create it). I used notable dictionary examples just to demonstrate that somebody knowledgeable already did this job of checking. Oxford, Cambridge and other well-known dictionaries don't include SoP's either (the inclusion of technical, linguistic or medical terms, which may be considered SoP otherwise is another story). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole verb section. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The sense added after the RfD could not have been included. It's customary for someone adding a sense to an RfDed section to replace {{rfd}} with as many {{rfd-sense}} templates as are required to delineate the scope of the RfD. DCDuring TALK 10:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that the adverb defn at "behind" no. 5 (After the departure of another) depends, as by a thread, on the meaning of "stay behind". So it is oly SoP by design. I am going to rfd the defn at "behind"; much more to the point. Thanks for your edit DCD. -- So, of course I vote keep. while I ask if DCD et al will ever stop knocking phrasal verbs? No? Didn't think so. -- ALGRIF talk 15:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasal verbs need a fair amount of work to add missing senses that we don't have and other references do. What many have in excess is SoP senses. I have long (years) asked for and never seen any trace of some relatively objective tests for the non-compositionality of a claimed phrasal verbs. I don't think it is reasonable to have our criteria be that anything that has the form Verb+Preposition where the preposition does not head a prepositional phrase is a phrasal verb. Many such "Prepositions" have adverbial senses. It is particularly obvious in the case of virtually every spatial sense for our "Phrasal verb" entries. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)`[reply]
Keep because we have Dutch achterblijven which is also a phrasal verb composed of a verb and an adverb, like this one. —CodeCat 03:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also have something like German nachsitzen as well in Dutch - the second sense of "stay behind"? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, what does it mean? —CodeCat 14:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It means to stay behind in school as a punishment. —Angr 14:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Just found a good example. "Darf meine Lehrerin mich nachsitzen lassen?" Can my (female) teacher make me stay behind (e.g. retention)? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that exists in Dutch too: nablijven, which is also a phrasal/separable verb. —CodeCat 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was only commenting on the definition in the entry at the time of the original nomination. Obviously any senses added since my comment, my comments don't apply to them (or if they do, it's only a coincidence). Not sure about the classroom sense, I tend to think it's includable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kept -- Liliana • 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfV debate[edit]

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

stay behind[edit]

Every one of the citations of the noun is hyphenated, as is every one of the first two pages of google books:"stay behinds". Do unhyphenated citations exist? If so, are they more common than hyphenated citations? If not, the lemma should be moved. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created stay-behind and moved the original citations. Also I found some citations for the term/form in question. The discussion remains open for now. You confused me a moment with the "two pages," but then I remembered my setting of 100 per page is not the default... :) — Pingkudimmi 13:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! RFV-passed (with stay-behind as the lemma). - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:stay_behind&oldid=36801242"