Talk:of importance

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

of importance

SOP? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Of course is clearly not SoP. (Try inserting an adjective.) Some OneLook dictionaries have of note; none have of importance, of interest, of import. Some former uses of of may not be productive, ie, "natural", any more, in contrast to, say, its use in partitive genitive constructions ("barrels of oil"}. But many such uses are transparent semantically.

Of note may be idiomatic because of the use of note#Etymology 3. I don't think note currently has the sense "reputation; distinction" in uses other than with "of", at least not often.

There are other expressions with of that are or have a greater prospect of being entry-worthy: of a kind, of a mind/of a mind to, of a piece, of all things, of all the nerve, of counsel, of old, of yore.

I'd say of importance is SoP. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete, transparent and also in no way unique. How about a chess move that's of brilliance or of genius? Just a way of using of with an abstract noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete and don't create in a house, in a box, on a table, etc. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those are anywhere near equivalent. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Me neither. I think of, like by, is now much more grammaticalized than many other prepositions. Some of its older uses are falling away. leaving us with some expressions that are hard to make sense out of by recourse to the components. But this one seems transparent. I just didn't want to jump to an unjustifable conclusion. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Sum of parts. Easily re-expressed as of significance, of consequence, of import, of note, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep as a predicative adjective. Don't we cater for them? Donnanz (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WT:CFI#idiomaticity "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." That's why. PS does it still count as harassment if I'm answering a question? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You were OK until you asked a question, I think. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• One thing that reminds one that this is genitive is that having is a substitute for of. Interestingly and tellingly having does not substitute in any on the list above of "of" phrases that I conjectured might be entry-worthy, except for of a mind to/of a mind DCDuring TALK 13:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 04:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)