Talk:abarcy
Add topicLatest comment:2 months agoby Denazz in topicRFV discussion: July 2023–October 2024
The following information has failedWiktionary's verification process(permalink).
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 meetsWiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
This, that and the other(talk)09:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Only posting to note that our current definition is the opposite of what it was when it was first listed.—Soap—10:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Even a fairly clueless user is able to do better than SB when it comes to defining words, it seems. OED gives "insatiableness", and theetymonmatches.This, that and the other(talk)11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- The OED currently politely says that it's "apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries", butearlier editionsdirectly call it a ghost word: "The L[atin] and Eng. seem alike fictions." So this might be a good case for
{{no entry}}.There is at least one case of someone using it to sound authentic in a period novel though, which I added atCitations:abarcy.—Al-Muqannaالمقنع (talk)10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- The OED currently politely says that it's "apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries", butearlier editionsdirectly call it a ghost word: "The L[atin] and Eng. seem alike fictions." So this might be a good case for
- Even a fairly clueless user is able to do better than SB when it comes to defining words, it seems. OED gives "insatiableness", and theetymonmatches.This, that and the other(talk)11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)