Are the definitions:
- a word that serves as the predicate of a sentence
- a content word that denotes an action or a state
two distinct senses of this word, or two different definitions of the same thing? The latter, I suspect, in which case they ought to be merged. Note however that some of the translations refer to sense 2. — Paul G 16:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Needs proper citations. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have provided one more quotation. I do not know if the disputed sense meets CFI or not. — Beobach972 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've added five -- not sure how good some of them are, but there should be enough evidence among them to verify. Cynewulf 16:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- RFVpassed. — Beobach972 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Auxiliaries in English
The definition right now is "(grammar) A word that indicates an action, event, or state.". This says nothing for auxiliary verbs like "could". I want to add something for this to the definition but I don't want to make it too complicated. Can anyone think of a wording? Rkaup (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)