Talk:double up as
Latest comment: 6 years ago by BD2412 in topic RFD discussion: November–December 2017
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- See also #double as.
Not a good definition, but hard to understand as anything but double up + as. DCDuring (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please delete and/or kill with fire. We see a lot of these, like "exist as" or "look like" or "walk towards" (made--up examples, but it's an epidemic). I hate the whole vote/discussion/blah blah but I really think we need some policy. I have a vague clue about what is a phrasal verb and what isn't. I am sure we have other users who are more linguistically qualified. Can we create some kind of rule that stops stuff like "stand near" being created? Equinox ◑ 04:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with deletion: double up + as. However, some sources consider these kinds of items to be phrasal verbs, "three-word phrasal verbs". “double up as”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows only Macmillan[1], having a soft redirect entry "same as double". By contrast, come out with is in M-W[2], Macmillan[3], oxforddictionaries.com[4]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the event that it's kept, the definition is wrong and should be changed. Both "To double up" and "to perform a secondary function" are intransitive (or include the object in the definition), whereas "double up as" is transitive. Mihia (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 08:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. bd2412 T 02:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)