Talk:got it

RFD — kept

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

Is this worth keeping? If so, it needs serious work. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's just an elliptical form of "I have got it", and we have "to understand" under get. This would open the floodgates for phrases like "done it" (task) and "seen it" (film). Equinox 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think got it is worth keeping at least in phrasebook, in the sense of "now I understand." All these warnings of floods and slippery slopes never seem to pan out. I don’t recall any entry that ushered in a flood of nonsense. The only slippery slopes I’ve seen have been in regard to deleting articles, not writing them. —Stephen 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if it was classed as an interjection Got it! it could be a good solution that would keep all floodgates secured for the time being. -- ALGRIF talk 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reclassified as interjection. Seems like it needs a {{non-gloss definition}}. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful. This is a pro-sentence (standing for "I have got it") not an interjection. — Paul G 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason for my dislike: consider the question "Be nice to her -- got it?". "Got it?" is a phrase on equal standing with "Got it", but here the omitted pronoun is "you" and not "I". Or consider "It's none of your business -- get it?", which has a different tense. To me, these possibilities reinforce the idea that it's just got+it, can be inflected any old way, and isn't a special form requiring separate definition. Equinox 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a pro-sentence so much as a sentence with ellipsis. Would you consider “Going to the store; want anything?” to be a pro-sentence standing for “I’m going to the store; do you want anything?”? —Ruakh_TALK 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are to have this entry, what is its relationship to get it? It seems as if it is just an inflected form. I don't know about the value of "get it" as an entry. The meaning-in-use just seems to be pragmatics, a worthwhile subject in an Appendix, and perhaps worth having a usage note or example for, perhaps an important subject for WikiGrammary. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should just be a {{past of|[[get it]]}} entry, like getting it and gets it are. The entry at get it has four idiomatic and one literal definition, so that seems highly valuable to me (I just looked it up to see what state our entry was in). Thryduulf 13:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf.—msh210℠ 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep as an inflection entry per Thryduulf, linking to Phrasebook per Stephen. --Duncan 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Thryduulf's points. Keep as inflected form of get it. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How's [[got it/temporary]]?—msh210℠ 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. An illustration of why we sometimes need some content for "form of" entries. If we have the usage note, we are inviting translations. I suppose the existence and nature of the translations might be facts that would lead to a constructive evolution of the entry. Perhaps it needs two "trans-see"s? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ay, it looks good. I propose two translations glosses like this, however, for I can't see what "trans-see"s would link to. --Duncan 15:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, then. Move along. Nothing to trans-see here. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I superceded msh210's [[got it/temporary]] plus my trans tables for the previous text on the page. Left there the tag yet, though. --Duncan 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Tag removed, striking. --Duncan 11:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

etymology

Ellipsis of "have you"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)