Talk:tomara que
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFD discussion: July 2018–February 2019
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
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.
Seems SOP to me, for the same reason that we don't have Spanish ojalá que, but I could be missing something. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The only other interjection that AFAIR behaves like this is oxalá, and very rarely, so this is certainly information that we need to mention somewhere. It is more similar to verbs like esperar and querer than interjections. A redirect to tomara + usage notes works, but I have no preference.
- Note that the usage is different from interjections like será, ainda bem, que pena/merda/sorte/etc. and graças a Deus that are either used alone or with que + a phrase with a verb in the indicative tense. These certainly don’t need separate entries with que, but tomara que requires special consideration. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Both "tomara" and "tomara que" are related terms, indeed. However, they are syntactically different. "Tomara" is an interjection -- it works fine on its own. On the other hand, "tomara que" is a phrase, used with a verb in the subjunctive mood. I don't think there is any need for a specific entry for "ojalá que", because "ojalá" can be used alone (as an interjection) or with a sentence (as a phrase) with or without "que". Conversely, when "tomara" is used as a phrase it is required to use "que" every time. CaiusSPQR (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- RFD passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)