Talk:haver de
Add topicLatest comment: 12 days ago by Polomo47 in topic RFD discussion: January 2025
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.
Portuguese. SOP, senses are already in haver and ter. Trooper57 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The definitions need to be removed from haver and ter, and instead be listed as soft redirects. Indeed not SoP because the words don't have such a sense without de for the former or either de / que for the latter. Compare have to and have. Polomo47 (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they're SOP. At the same time, however, we don't need the pages if they're already defined at the verbs themselves, which is totally okay to do. It might be worth noting that while we have haber de and tener que, we don't have ter de. This is kind of similar to #acabar de in that we can either list them at the verb or have a page for this hmm. I was thinking about
abstaining, but seeing that they work sort of like auxiliary verbs and could be very useful for learners... hmmmm. I should probably review my vote at the acabar de section. MedK1 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- Done. Keep. MedK1 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- See what I proposed we do to the entries. Polomo47 (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. MedK1 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- See what I proposed we do to the entries. Polomo47 (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Keep. MedK1 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changed. RfD-resolved. Polomo47 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)