The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Current definitions for verb don't look like verbs to me. RJFJR 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I assume it's an error. As you suggest, forms like standoffed and standoffing would be absurd. I've removed some mistaken verbs of this kind in the past. Having said that, standoffing appears once in Google Books, and user:DCDuring stood up in support of standby as a verb, so I suppose you never know! Equinox 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. I don't see any way to use this as a verb except to take it apart into "stand off". -- Pinkfud 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have created stand off with correct definitions. This supposed verbal form of what is generally accepted as a noun is a no-no for me. It would need some pretty convincing cites to support the definitions given. I'm not searching, as I believe the search will be a futile waste of time. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- If we want to be strictly descriptivist, I think it's clear that many speakers write the bare forms of many intransitive verb-particle idioms without any space or hyphen; for example, RuakhTALK 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC) gets >50 MGhits (raw), even though gets <60 (real) and gets <20 (real). In the case at hand, (for example) pulls up three distinct non-scanno verb uses. However, we're not strictly descriptivist; we do have some concept of "misconstruction" or "misspelling". So, how do we want to handle this? Is it a misspelling? (If so, I don't think it's common enough to be included.) —
- Looks fine. To keep this from being rechallenged or "corrected", should we also have a usage note? The inflection-line could be missed of taken as an error. I don't think the talk page copy of this discussion is enough to prevent a repeat. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)