Talk:melt into

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

melt into

This doesn't seem like a real phrasal verb to me and there aren't any objective criteria for determining such either, afaict. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a phrasal verb. The "into" is a preposition that takes an object, or else is an adverb when the object is unstated. There's a difference between "The blue melted into the purple" and "The child ate up the information." In the first case, the prepositional phrase makes sense as a prepositional phrase. The latter sentence, which has a phrasal verb, cannot be parsed as having a prepositional phrase "up the information". Likewise, one can say "The child ate the information up," but one cannot say "The blue melted the purple into." --EncycloPetey 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, EP. That helps. But, I get the feeling that what you describe would be a sufficient condition for "phrasal-verbity", but not a necessary one. Am I wrong? Should I just lie down until that feeling goes away? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete because melt into doesn't suggest anything that melt + into doesn't. Equinox 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Move sense 2 to RFV; if it passes, then keep. I know of no other intransitive use of (deprecated template usage) into — the intransitive counterpart is always (deprecated template usage) in — I find it really hard to believe that are speakers for whom "the ice melted into" means "the ice melted", but if there are, then (deprecated template usage) melt into certainly warrants coverage.

If sense 2 fails RFV, then weak keep, because there are still idiomatic senses, like in this quotation (via google books:"melted into a chair"):

• 2004, Julia London, Highlander Unbound, Simon and Schuster, →ISBN, page 122:

  Ellen pushed away from the door, drifted toward the couch, smiling, and melted into a chair, burrowing deep into the cushions, hugging herself as she thought of the bold man who had just left her sitting room.

As you say, it's not a phrasal verb, but it still seems like an idiom.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the idiom is in (deprecated template usage) melt, not in "melted into", since she could have "melted from fatigue". --EncycloPetey 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that way to me. There are lots of varieties of figurative melting, most of which seem to occur either with or without prepositions, let alone with "into". One could "melt" "over the arm of the chair", "onto the floor", "under the blankets", "away from the advancing forces". More troubling to the RfD is "melt into" in a sense of "become". "In a moment, the brave soldier melted into quivering protoplasm." This would seem to possibly be a copula, albeit with a semantically limited range. "Brittle melted into gooey." DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a copula, since it requires a preposition. I don't see this as any different from "The company closed as a successful experiment." It is the preposition (deprecated template usage) into that carries the sense "producing, becoming", which is already given in that entry. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the second example the putative preposition "into" was followed by an adjective, which is why I thought it was possible that it was a copula. One would have to infer a noun that was "understood" (a word from grammar classes long ago) or that "gooey" was functioning as noun. I'd be surprised if there were no scholarly work on the concept of "phrasal copulae". ;-)) DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are plenty of examples of adjectives functioning substantively, and it's easy to fabricate examples: "The rich turned into the poor." "The happy bled into the sad." "Light dimmed into dark." In all of these situations, one quality is transforming or grading (deprecated template usage) into another. By definition, it's not a copula if there is a conjunctive word in addition to the putative copula. --EncycloPetey 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not as easy to fabricate examples with bare adjectives, which would seem to be the minimal requirement for a copula. I was careful enough to avoid any determiner before "gooey". I'm not trying to be difficult: I just want to make sure that I've pushed this as far as it can go or have somebody buy me a really good English grammar (either cgel or the previous best one) to shut me up or raise my quality of discourse. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about a copula that requires a bare adjective, or any adjective at all. A copula can work with any subject complement, whether adjective, noun, noun phrase, or any nominative compound construction. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the bare adjective test is a potential test for discriminating. A bare adjective cannot be a substantive, can it? A preposition cannot "take" a non-substantive, can it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a bare adjective can be substantive: "Meek wins." And a preposition can take a non-substantive (sort of). However, the prepositional object becomes a substantive automatically, in every case I can conceive: "She wrote the book on clean." ... even when the object is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. NOT a phrasal verb, for all the above reasons. The definition should be at melt. -- ALGRIF talk 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If necessary RFV second sense, which seems more like a mistake than anything, or just delete along with everything else. Not a phrasal verb, idiomatic meaning is for melt. DAVilla 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 removed. Sense 2 kept, sent to RFV.—msh210℠ 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Excerpts from RFD discussion, some of which are here out of context of others' remarks ("sense 2" discussed there is the only extant sense now):

Move sense 2 to RFV; if it passes, then keep. I know of no other intransitive use of (deprecated template usage) into — the intransitive counterpart is always (deprecated template usage) in — I find it really hard to believe that are speakers for whom "the ice melted into" means "the ice melted", but if there are, then (deprecated template usage) melt into certainly warrants coverage. […] —Ruakh_TALK 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[…] troubling to the RfD is "melt into" in a sense of "become". "In a moment, the brave soldier melted into quivering protoplasm." This would seem to possibly be a copula, albeit with a semantically limited range. "Brittle melted into gooey." DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a copula, since it requires a preposition. I don't see this as any different from "The company closed as a successful experiment." It is the preposition (deprecated template usage) into that carries the sense "producing, becoming", which is already given in that entry. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the second example the putative preposition "into" was followed by an adjective, which is why I thought it was possible that it was a copula. One would have to infer a noun that was "understood" (a word from grammar classes long ago) or that "gooey" was functioning as noun. I'd be surprised if there were no scholarly work on the concept of "phrasal copulae". ;-)) DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are plenty of examples of adjectives functioning substantively, and it's easy to fabricate examples: "The rich turned into the poor." "The happy bled into the sad." "Light dimmed into dark." In all of these situations, one quality is transforming or grading (deprecated template usage) into another. By definition, it's not a copula if there is a conjunctive word in addition to the putative copula. --EncycloPetey 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not as easy to fabricate examples with bare adjectives, which would seem to be the minimal requirement for a copula. I was careful enough to avoid any determiner before "gooey". I'm not trying to be difficult: I just want to make sure that I've pushed this as far as it can go or have somebody buy me a really good English grammar (either cgel or the previous best one) to shut me up or raise my quality of discourse. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about a copula that requires a bare adjective, or any adjective at all. A copula can work with any subject complement, whether adjective, noun, noun phrase, or any nominative compound construction. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the bare adjective test is a potential test for discriminating. A bare adjective cannot be a substantive, can it? A preposition cannot "take" a non-substantive, can it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a bare adjective can be substantive: "Meek wins." And a preposition can take a non-substantive (sort of). However, the prepositional object becomes a substantive automatically, in every case I can conceive: "She wrote the book on clean." ... even when the object is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If necessary RFV second sense, which seems more like a mistake than anything, or just delete along with everything else. […] DAVilla 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 removed. Sense 2 kept, sent to RFV.—msh210℠ 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)