Talk:so do I
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Msh210 in topic so do I
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
neither do I[edit]
These two can both be conjugated for other pronouns and other tenses (e.g., (deprecated template usage) so will he, (deprecated template usage) neither did you) without changing the essential meaning. This leads me to believe that they are NISOP and ought to be deleted. Now, again, can we not have such requests in Wiktionary:Wanted entries? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- These are phrasebook entries, which are generally held to a lower standard, but I too think they should go
, unless they really are completely incomprehensible to furriners. And if that's the case, then, yes, we need a slew of redirects, and probably also [[nor do I]] (and perhaps [[me neither]] and others).—msh210℠ 16:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)- Keep. These are phrasebook entries, and they're useful phrases. What's the problem? --Yair rand 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- They're not exactly "how are you" or "good morning", which are essentials of polite discource, nor are they "do you speak English" or "where is a restroom" which are essentials for tourists. They're merely common phrases. We generally don't keep phrases just for their translations, but make an exception for phrasebook entries. My objection to keeping these is that they don't seem to belong in a phrasebook. (I wrote above "unless they really are completely incomprehensible to furriners", which was an illogical compromise: even though I think they don't belong in a phrasebook (and we definitely shouldn't keep them if they're not in the phrasebook), let's keep them if they are very useful for their translations. Like I said, illogical. In fact, I'm striking that.)—msh210℠ 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If we had coherent criteria from anyone, especially those with experience in second-language education, this might be a keeper. But we don't, so it isn't. Every time we put a phrase that is SoP into our lexicon we probably cause dozens or more of contributors and users to waste their time and bandwidth on the entry. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- They're not exactly "how are you" or "good morning", which are essentials of polite discource, nor are they "do you speak English" or "where is a restroom" which are essentials for tourists. They're merely common phrases. We generally don't keep phrases just for their translations, but make an exception for phrasebook entries. My objection to keeping these is that they don't seem to belong in a phrasebook. (I wrote above "unless they really are completely incomprehensible to furriners", which was an illogical compromise: even though I think they don't belong in a phrasebook (and we definitely shouldn't keep them if they're not in the phrasebook), let's keep them if they are very useful for their translations. Like I said, illogical. In fact, I'm striking that.)—msh210℠ 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. These are phrasebook entries, and they're useful phrases. What's the problem? --Yair rand 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Criteria would be nice, wouldn't it?. If only language wasn't so, ummm, illogical. Or perhaps that's the point in language teaching. The ones to keep, from a TEFL point of view, are the ones that are basically illogical, and so seem to be exceptions that need to be taught as such. This entry is not an exception. It is taught very early on in the first chapter (phrase book stuff) on how to agree and disagree. But of course later it becomes clear that they can be conjugated, and so are logical. So the only basis I can see for keeping this is as a phrase book entry, but I really don't feel like supporting even that, to be honest. -- ALGRIF talk 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- They would indeed. "Lemming"-type criteria would be OK with me, though we seem to be too proud to formalize them. (Ie, three phrasebooks from this century or Wordnet or any idiom dictionary).
- These terms are deixes. I have this day created Category:English deixes to capture some similar and possibly unidiomatic entries for review. (I began with some containing (deprecated template usage) that.) Decisions about this entry might benefit from comparison with some of those and other entries that should be in that category. Whether the category should be retained long-term I don't know. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not strictly relevant here, but many pronouns belong in that cat, but not, e.g., somebody, so the whole "English pronouns" cat can't simply be made a subcat.—msh210℠ 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Criteria would be nice, wouldn't it?. If only language wasn't so, ummm, illogical. Or perhaps that's the point in language teaching. The ones to keep, from a TEFL point of view, are the ones that are basically illogical, and so seem to be exceptions that need to be taught as such. This entry is not an exception. It is taught very early on in the first chapter (phrase book stuff) on how to agree and disagree. But of course later it becomes clear that they can be conjugated, and so are logical. So the only basis I can see for keeping this is as a phrase book entry, but I really don't feel like supporting even that, to be honest. -- ALGRIF talk 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete You guys are kidding right? How about Why not me? or I like hamburgers too? This is not a phrasebook! Facts707 12:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Wiktionary does indeed have WT:Phrasebook, although this is not mentioned anywhere in WT:ELE. Facts707 18:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Because this is isn't used with modals: cf. so am I, so can I, so would I etc. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted both.—msh210℠ 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)