Talk:bring it on

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

bring it on

Verb: Under the rules I understood this is the wrong title. Now it's just opinion. IMO, it should be at bring on. One could bring a thing or a person or the near-meaningless "it". Move to bring on. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Move/merge into [[bring on]] per nom.​—msh210℠ 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

bring it on#Interjection

Interjection: As with all imperatives so classified, it is not an interjection in the basic sense of the word. It is certainly not obvious what basic emotion one would assume was associated (fear?, anger?, grief?, lust? seeking?, delight?). Does it always or usually convery an emotion? I think not. There is the additional problem that one would have some difficulty in gathering evidence for attestation.

It would seem best treated as a redirect to the lemma bring on, with the lemma containing either a sense line with a non-gloss definition or a usage note referencing the imperative usage. Redirect to bring on. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Move to bring on and don't keep the interjection. The entry as it's written right now is awful, moving it is a good first step. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is. Yes, it's conjugatable to brought it on, brings it on, etc. but in the interjection sense it's almost never conjugated...--达伟 15:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well no, verbs conjugate, nouns and adjectives decline, interjections are invariant. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every word can be used as a grammatical isolate or anaphorically. Right? "Anaphorically?" you ask? Pro-sentence? Anyone? DCDuring TALK 17:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a stab at defining bring on, but the definition needs some work --Rising Sun talk? 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep as per 达伟|达伟. Additionally, consider this: while bring it on and brought it on are commonly used, they have two different meanings; bring it on is generally used to indicate acceptance of a challenge (e.g., "Bring it on, fool!": "I accept your challenge, though it seems a foolhardy one for you to make."), whereas brought it on is usually used to indicate that someone's troubles are of his own manufacture ("I heard Smith's house collapsed in the storm last week." "Yeah, but he squandered his inheritance. If you ask me, he brought it on himself."). --SpecOp Macavity 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you reconcile your argument supporting "keep" with the following:

It looks to me as if this is a normal verb phrase, often used in the imperative in overheated contexts such as sports and entertainment. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is any sentence, phrase, or word spoken with emotional force to be shown here as an interjection? DCDuring TALK 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not. Delete the interjection sense.​—msh210℠ 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One, those uses are the exception to the rule. Two, here are a few definitions of interjection for you:

• Princeton WordWeb: an abrupt emphatic exclamation expressing emotion
• LanguageLinks: Interjections - are words or expressions used as an exclamation
• University of Cicinnatti: a word (one of the eight parts of speech) expressing emotion and having no grammatical relation with other words in the sentence

So yes, I would say that any phrase or word spoken with emotional force (such as the RfD'ed sense of bring it on) constitutes an interjection. --SpecOp Macavity 14:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I could easily entertain the idea of bring it on#Verb as distinct from bring it on#Interjection. "It" is quite empty in the uses of this expression that I have seen and heard and which now appear as citations for the verb. I suppose you could say it is a deixes, as any use of "it" is, but that strains the meaning of deixis. Obviously the phrase derives from typical use of "it", but the nature of the referent now seems quite vague: perhaps "intensity", "competitiveness", "maximum effort". None of those meanings is explicitly mentioned in the surrounding text. It seems to derive from the use of the term in competitive situations (eg, war, sports, electoral politics) or performances requiring or benefiting from intensity of effort (acting, other entertainment, speech-making, teaching?).

It is much harder for me to accept that there is any distinct meaning to the interjection apart. There can be emotion. But emotional content alone is no justification for a separate sense. Almost any word (and more obviously any phrase) can be delivered with various valences, types, blends, and levels of emotion.

If the rationale is that it is a speech act, then we should have as entries all oaths of office, pledges of allegiance, commands, legal formulas, etc.

If someone would care to demonstrate that there is a distinct interjectional sense not immediately following from grammar of imperatives, then the entry would belong here. I haven't run across such senses and no one has included any in the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment bring it has been created as an entry, so should a part of it be merged there instead? TeleComNasSprVen 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted. The verb sense can now be found at bring on, where you're free to improve it. -- Prince Kassad 09:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)