Talk:avoir besoin de

RFD

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.

---

avoir besoin de

For the same reason that have need of lacks an entry in English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

But this is the French way to say "to need". It's kinda set term, isn't it? I changed the translation form "have need of" to "need". --Hekaheka (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Hek Purplebackpack89 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it must be kept. The only question is about the de. Should the title be avoir besoin de or avoir besoin? For information, fr.wikt has avoir besoin de, and this seems reasonable in this case. Lmaltier (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it's certainly a unit in French in a way that "have need of" isn't in English. (It might be instructive to compare French pouvoir with English "be able to": we have no infinitive for "can".) I don't know. Anyway: the answer to Lmaltier's question is to make one a redirect to the other. Since we can say "dont il a besoin" (I think!), probably redirect the de-form to the form without it. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It’a set phrase with the compulsory de. You don’t say just j’ai besoin; you say j’en ai besoin, where en works as “of it” and contains de implicitly. And as Equinox said, you say dont j’ai besoin, where dont contains de. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per above. bd2412 T 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)