Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:pos vt. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:pos vt, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:pos vt in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:pos vt you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:pos vt will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:pos vt, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. The POS templates are (only?) used after derived terms, related terms, etc., to indicate their POS; that makes them analogous to one use of the gender templates, {{m}} and {{f}} and so on, which some editors also use in those contexts, even though we treat ===Noun=== as a single POS regardless of gender. And I could definitely imagine someone getting mileage out of {{pos vi}} and {{pos vt}} in cases where there are two related verbs, one active/transitive and one middle/mediopassive/reflexive/intransitive. (I mean, personally I don't use any of the POS templates, nor gender templates in POS-template contexts; but unless you're suggesting jettisoning the whole lot, it's not obvious to me that these three are any more worthy of jettisoning than the others.) —RuakhTALK20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes — but so would {{qualifier|verb}} and {{qualifier|noun}} and so on, for the (relatively rare) cases that those are genuinely useful. (To be clear: I'm not voting 'keep'. I'm just not convinced that it makes sense to delete these while keeping the rest of the POS templates.) —RuakhTALK21:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
There's kind of a difference - the meanings of v and n are rather obvious, even if you've never seen them before. But you'll never know what vt or vi mean without looking them up somewhere. -- Liliana•04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
One man's "rather obvious" is another man's . . . not. Even the same man's "obvious" can vary from day to day. I remember once consulting a dictionary that marked various words as vb. My reaction: "I'm familiar with vt and vi, but what the heck is vb? 'Bitransitive'? Does it mean it can be used either way?" Turns out, it just meant "verb". (And v and n, of course, have other uses; v means "see", and n means "neuter". In this respect vt and vi are arguably more obvious!) —RuakhTALK02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Re "The POS templates are (only?) used after derived terms, related terms, etc.": no, not only. {{term}} uses them in (e.g.) {{term|foo|pos=n}} (which displays foo(noun)).—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
These are in use and I see no reason to get rid of them. They are POSes, albeit not ones that we use as headers, and I fully subscribe to Ruakh's "I could definitely imagine someone getting mileage out of {{pos vi}} and {{pos vt}} in cases where there are two related verbs". Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
