Well, it's a noun followed by a preposition. It's not any POS or even a syntactic constituent. I suppose we could call it a contraction. —Angr21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, the use that we're calling an adverb is widespread. I'm not sure how widespread the use we're calling a noun is. And why doesn't it fit the definition of a contraction? —Angr23:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The last time I looked our definition included the word apostrophe, which is certainly the 'folk' understanding of the term among English speakers. Basic grammar books continue to present contractions with this language. Our use of the Contraction header need not be bound by this, but, at the very least, we need to add an appropriate linguistic sense to [[contraction]] and the sense we use atWT:Glossary, unless we don't want to communicate with normal human users.
You may be right about it not being "widespread", but it would certainly be no great effort to cite the non-adverbial use properly, asthis Google Books search for "sorta thing" suggests.DCDuringTALK00:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I regularly confuse the two glossaries. At least the term is in the right glossary. I think we can just "especially" the apostrophe in both our definitions. That should keep us and our users on the same page.DCDuringTALK01:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Even with an "especially", we also have to add an "in English" since other languages do not necessarily put apostrophes in their contractions. —Angr20:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fix and keep: There's no argument for deletion here; no evidence that the phrase is SOP or non-attestable or any other reason. All we know is that it ain't a noun. So change it to something else19:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
So what wouldwitcher andyabbut be? There is no absolute necessity that our L3 headings be limited to a scheme of grammatical categories that would satisfy a linguist, let alone a traditional grammarian. We put things under L3 "Phrase" header that are not phrases. SeeCategory:English non-constituents for other syntactically problematic entries.DCDuringTALK18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Witcher is an adverb liketogether (or the Spanishcontigo), andyabbut is a conjunction likebut. There are many words that are contractions etymologically, but if they are fixed enough, they should be classified in an appropriate part of speech. —TAKASUGI Shinji (talk)00:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I would categorize them as auxiliaries just likedidn't anddon't. The weakening of a postposed pronoun is a common phenomenon and it may become a personal ending eventually. Think aboutanother, which is clearlyan +other, but that is just an etymology that doesn’t affect the classification. —TAKASUGI Shinji (talk)02:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't mean to point any fingers - I didn't know who put that noun def - I just wanted to illustrate similar thinking as I thought it may be useful. Actually nouny meanings seemed far-fetched to me rigth from the start but now I am a little more convinced that I can voice my opinion.--BiblbroXдискашн23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I find it kinda funny. I'd always thought that these non-constituent terms needed more attention, which is why I createdCategory:English non-constituents. I now think that many of them should be under the Contraction header, the Phrase header, or possibly the Preposition header (for so-called phrasal prepositions). But there are some that can be analyzed as if they were an ordinary part of speech, likekinda#Adverb.DCDuringTALK23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
