Talk:run in
Latest comment: 2 years ago by DCDuring in topic RFV discussion: January–April 2022
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
The only two adjective senses are semantically redundant to verb senses. I have not yet found evidence of adjectivity. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- They are participial adjective senses. My issue with omitting them from Wiktionary on that basis alone is that Wiktionary is chock full of participial adjectives entered under "Adjective" sections, treating the part of speech as adjective. I welcome others' viewpoints on the general case. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- RfV is not the place for such debates. You might try WT:Tea Room for questions about this term. We follow the CGEL (2002) tests of adjectivity. We need data (citations, see WT:ATTEST) that show(s) these uses meet the tests. DCDuring (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The terms run in amd broken in meet all the criteria for adjectivity given in CGEL 2002:528-541. I acknowledge the need for attestation data to be supplied at wikt:Citations:run_in. I don't know when I will have time to supply that. I will hope that no one will delete the entered senses (which pass the CGEL 2002 criteria) in the meantime, without trying to fulfill the RfV first. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- RfV gives a minimum of 30 days. DCDuring (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The terms run in amd broken in meet all the criteria for adjectivity given in CGEL 2002:528-541. I acknowledge the need for attestation data to be supplied at wikt:Citations:run_in. I don't know when I will have time to supply that. I will hope that no one will delete the entered senses (which pass the CGEL 2002 criteria) in the meantime, without trying to fulfill the RfV first. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- RfV is not the place for such debates. You might try WT:Tea Room for questions about this term. We follow the CGEL (2002) tests of adjectivity. We need data (citations, see WT:ATTEST) that show(s) these uses meet the tests. DCDuring (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cited as to existence of the term, yes, but not as to its part of speech. The cites for neither definition provide unambiguous support for adjectivity. In the first definition the 1956, '76, '87, and 2019 cites are all simple use of a form of be with the term in question. That is as easily read as passive voice as predicate use of an adjective. The 1985 cite is of the form want [NP] run in. I view this as parallel to want [NP] terminated, ie, also offering no basis for distinguishing between adjective and verb (past participle). The cites for the second definition have a similar problem. Neither set of citations provides unambiguous evidence that the term in either definition meets the tests of adjectivity that would serve to discriminate between adjective and verb. The tests that unambiguously discriminate between adjective and verb are comparability, modifiability by very or too, or a distinction in semantics. I don't think there is any hope for the semantic distinction for the current definitions. (Compare the adjective and verb definitions.) Perhaps someone can do better than I at finding cites that meet the other tests. DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)