Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense: "(transitive) To conquer somewhere."
Conquest and occupation are obviously distinguishable. Is there usage in which occupy means "to conquer" and not merely "to take possession or control of"? DCDuringTALK 17:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hm, one can say a power "conquered but did/could not occupy" a place... perhaps we can look for "occupied but did/could not hold"? Interestingly, that gets one (non-durable) hit, a biography of John Byron: "Royalist commander and Governor of Chester. […] Defeated in skirmish at Brackley (Aug. 1642); occupied, but could not hold, Oxford and Worcester (1642); at Edgehill, took the cavalry reserve into the charge against orders (1642)". It also gets two durable hits, which I've placed here. There may be a better interpretation of those citations, though, than as using the sense in question ("conquer"). - -sche(discuss) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There is overlap in the usage and some synonym groups might include both. I just couldn't defend the definition "conquer". I think translators of less than, say, EN-3 could be seriously misled. DCDuringTALK 19:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree; the wording needs to be greatly refined so as not to mislead. - -sche(discuss) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)