Talk:Christofascist

RFV discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Needs attestation of use as true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD: no such attestation has been provided, but I'm not convinced. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

Christofascist

Was listed at RFV with the comment, “Needs attestation of use as true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives.” However, AFAIK there's no policy requiring such attestation. In general it's good to apply this sort of test, but I think this might be an exception.

The issue is simply that Christofascist is rare — b.g.c. gives less than twenty hits — and the majority of the b.g.c. hits are formally ambiguous between noun and adjective readings. (In some cases the noun readings are a bit, um, implausible — "christofascist people" clearly doesn't mean "people of christofascists", and a "philosopher kings"–type reading seems far-fetched — but Wiktionary:English adjectives makes no concessions on that point.) A few hits are predicative and therefore clearly adjectival, but these are secondhand — things like “those right-wing Christologies to which Dorothee Soelle has referred as ‘Christofascist’” (mention) and “Some of the pluralists speak derisively of the high Christology of trinitarian dogma as christofascist and […] ” (arguably use, but basically mention IMHO), “It would be unfair to apply the term “Christofascist” to this approach, […] ” (mention, and also hard to definitively prove as adjectival, though IMHO an attributive noun couldn't be mentioned this way).

I say keep: there are plenty of reasons to think this is an adjective, and no reasons SFAICT to think that it isn't.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, the question becomes whether we want to keep forms which are correct constructions but not attested. I don't have an opinion on that. - [The]DaveRoss 19:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)