Talk:see
I see you is an idiom --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
idiom? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe rather seen't it. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
RFD discussion: February 2020–January 2022
The following information passed a request 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.
"Interjection"
- Directing the audience to pay attention to the following
- See here, fellas, there's no need for all this rucus!
- Synonyms: behold, look; see also Thesaurus:lo
- Introducing an explanation
How is the imperative of see an interjection in the usage examples? DCDuring (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- We've got an entry at see here, BTW. Equinox ◑ 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Given that we don't even label the interjectional (read: interjection-like) sense of "read" that I just used as an interjection, it does seem inconsistent to present these as interjections. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is very similar to “Listen, guys – we have to talk“, which we do not list as an interjection. On the other hand, we do list look as an interjection (as well as lo and behold). I have no strong opinion as to whether we should list such imperatives also as interjections, but it is IMO obvious that see in “See, it isn’t that hard” is not meant as a literal command to exercise one’s faculty of sight. (BTW, this use fits neither of the two given senses.) --Lambiam 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete just the imperative. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's similar to well although one could also analyze it as an imperative. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Probably Delete - not particularly interesting as a search term. Also listen, listen up, look, etc. I think this on the edge of a dictionary and getting into a style guide.Facts707 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete 1st, keep 2nd. First sense doesn't seem to be separable from see here. But second is legitimate. The second sense may have evolved from an imperative use of the verb see, but it's been semantically bleached, and is now just a discourse marker. If you try to read the "See" in the example sentence as a command, the sentence becomes an ungrammatical comma splice. Compare: Pay attention, in order to win the full prize... You also can't (naturally) read that sentence with the same prosody as the original. (Interestingly, even listen, and look, which are also discourse markers with the form of an imperative verb, can't be substituted with the same prosody. To my ear, they introduce a slightly longer pause, and have a falling pitch contour, whereas see has more of a flat or rising pitch, like now, so, or but.) Regarding part of speech, interjection seems fine as a diagnosis of exclusion. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the imperative, kept the other. What to do about translations?? DAVilla 00:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Since nothing has been done about this in the intervening eight months, I will archive this to the talk page in another day or two, and let it be addressed there. bd2412 T 19:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)