Talk:of one's own accord

RFM discussion: July 2010–May 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

of one's own accord

Move to one's own accord, keeping redirect and adding on one's own accord as redirect. At COCA, not only "of" and "on", but also "by" and "to" appear with "[one's] own accord". "Of one's own accord" seems to constitute only about 80% of the usage, not enough IMHO to justify making it the representative of the construction. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What's a good definition line?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this might be even better at (deprecated template usage) accord with redirects. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think moving to one's own accord would be the best course of action. with the redirects. I think lumping these sort of definitions in with their base words would create a larege and bulky "accord" definition. Speednat (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

All that [[accord#Noun]] needs is a usage example. Wouldn't it be nice if a wiki-search for "of one's/its/their/my/your/our/his/her own accord" actually took a user to the section containing the usage example or, better, highlighted the usage example and positioned the browser window so that the highlighted example was about one inch above the bottom of the window. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived as stale. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

on one’s own accord

Following the obsolete use illustrated in On mine owne accord, Ile off (Shakespeare, Winter’s Tale , 1611) with on as the head of the phrase is impossible to say whether this is a survival or a solecism. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

of one's own accord

Discussion moved from User talk:Sgconlaw.

I think this is usually used to mean "on one's own initiative" rather than "willingly". I am also very sure that there is usage that is ambiguous wrt. that distinction and rather sure that either is used to refer to the same circumstances. I hope that this is covered by See also mentions. Is a usage note necessary with two definitions? DCDuring (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@DCDuring: sure. I think it's fine to move both voluntarily and willingly to the "See also" section, just as long as we don't have one word listed as a synonym and the other one not similarly listed. What would you propose to say in a usage note? — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)