The entry claims it to be a nonce...a b.g.c. search shows it probably had a different meaning ealy last century. --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha! The encyclopaedic definition is accurate as far as it goes (I remember the sketch). But, don't ever suggest using the full OED as a Scrabble dictionary (yes it has it, with the obvious meaning, ie as most of the b.g.c. hits, and one cite from 1877). But to cap it all, the 1907 b.g.c hit claims it as a nonce word too. So a (just) real word has been thought to be a nonce twice. I'll have a go at it over the weekend if no one beats me to it. --Enginear 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Also "more cupboardy" and "most cupboardy". DAVilla 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have trimmed the definition, added a citation and reference. SemperBlotto 08:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added an etymology, 2nd sense as "Associated with cupboard love", more cites and short usage note re TV usage.
I can't find any usage of more cupboardly or most cupboardly anywhere. My preference, as I suggested a few months back, is to mark such inflections as (not cited). Any thoughts? --Enginear 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Whereäs that could arguably be the right thing to do for unverified plural forms, it is not necessary for adjectival comparatives and superlatives. Although almost everyone uses better and best as the comparative and superlative forms of good, it would not be incorrect to use “more good” or “most good”; I believe that this is true for any adjective (correct me if I’m wrong). Therefore, though it would be necessary to provide citations for “cupboardier” or “cupboardiest”, it would not be necessary to do so for “more cupboardy” or “most cupboardy”, as this pattern of forming comparatives and superlatives is never incorrect. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So would it be "more dead" then? :-) --Connel MacKenzie 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and for this reason I'd be inclined to suggest that explicitly listing the "more" and "most" constructions is, in general, not necessary at all. (P.S. "Whereäs"? :-) ) —scs 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, although (roughly) the same reasoning could be applied unto most nouns: so many nouns are pluralised by adding -s, that it is unnecessary to provide this ubiquitous plural form. Again, perhaps so, but I would still choose to include these forms, however common. I see little point in the alternative of stating that the plural / comparative / superlative is not cited.
Postscriptum: I write whereäs with a diæresis to avoid its being mispronounced /ʍɛriːz/ in stead of /ʍɛrɑz/. Not that anyone ever makes that mistake... Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
(Oh, yes, I got that right away, and I thought it was very cute, which is why I couldn't let it pass without comment. —scs 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC))
Struck... -- Beobach972 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)