Talk:awkwardnessful

Isn't the sentence "Divide the adjectives in English into two categories, such as 'petasyllabic', 'awkwardnessful', and 'recherche', and those which are not, such as 'edible', 'incomplete', and 'bisyllabic'. " from Godel, Escher, Bach (Douglas R. Hofstadter)?

Yup, it is.

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.

---

awkwardnessful

All of the bgc cites are mentions, not dissimilar from the Hofstadter quote in the entry. See Google awkwardnessful (Books • Groups • Scholar). There might be one or two valid ones at Groups. Nothing at all at News. Nothing visible to me at Scholar. Is there an Appendix for this? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely an RFV question: WT:CFI does say 'Conveying meaning' so mere mentions would be enough to pass this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Is there an Appendix for this?" WT:LOP, if nothing else. But yes, this should probably be a RFV. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations added. Possibly all of them. — Pingku^dimmi 06:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cited. Well, congratulations. The Groups cites, with the context available via the url, seem to show the meaning. The Hofstadter cite shows the apparent coinage. Now we should make it WOTD so we can enable the removal of {{rare}}. DCDuring TALK 09:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

kept, I suppose. -- Liliana • 04:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)