Talk:Might Could
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Scope
Should the name/scope of this page be tweaked? For example, the best caper example is actually a quadruple modal including things other than might and could -132.183.151.171 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's what Deliberately Poor English is for. This is just to document a specific bad grammarism that's appeared a noteble amount of times.
Dr. Clash 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a shorter section of Engrish. Delete. — MichaelXX2
22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a worthy article, since it is a bit peculiar construction, and repeated multiple times, unlike random malapropisms that are in Engrish. Keep wbwolf (t | ed) 22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. — Defender1031*Talk 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Chill, people. I was just saying that, like Be's, this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap.
Dr. Clash 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. This page is documenting usage of a specific double modal. I'm saying we should focus on the page on the usages of double modals in general, not just specifically "might could." -132.183.151.171 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason to NOT keep this page, seeing how this is not even what we're talking about. AS for the name scope, I suppose it maaaaay be tweaked, but I don't feel it is incredibly neccisary. --Jellote 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I admit that when I posted that I had no idea what you were talking a boot. But now I know, and as for the name, it is fine as is. --Jellote 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason to NOT keep this page, seeing how this is not even what we're talking about. AS for the name scope, I suppose it maaaaay be tweaked, but I don't feel it is incredibly neccisary. --Jellote 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. This page is documenting usage of a specific double modal. I'm saying we should focus on the page on the usages of double modals in general, not just specifically "might could." -132.183.151.171 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Chill, people. I was just saying that, like Be's, this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap.
Dr. Clash 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. — Defender1031*Talk 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a worthy article, since it is a bit peculiar construction, and repeated multiple times, unlike random malapropisms that are in Engrish. Keep wbwolf (t | ed) 22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a shorter section of Engrish. Delete. — MichaelXX2
