This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
A quick search reveals that this is one of those words that is in every dictionary, but never in prose. The only apparent use I found immediately defined the term after using it. Additionally, if it fails rfv, we get to remove its etyma from wanted pages, as they also do not seem to exist. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cited, more or less. Apart from a few weird poetic uses, though, those 3 are about all I could find. One of the few words that's in the OED with no supporting citations whatsoever (not even the mentiony kind). As for the etyma, I'd have to leave it to the Latin experts, but abacinatus seems legit. -- Visviva 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The etymology is, however, suspect. See User talk:EncycloPetey#abacinatus for what I know about the alleged Latin root. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering: UK audio seems inconsistent with IPA
First, I probably have below average hearing and certainly can not competently interpret IPA, but the audio clip pronounces it with three syllables a bas inate (or maybe four: ap bas in ate ) while the IPA shows (if I am interpreting it correctly) two. This seems curious. More so when you consider that the word is not used - meaning how do we determine pronounciation of a word virtually never spoken? You can argue all you want about Latin pronounciation but last I heard, that's a dead language as well... I guess my question is should the audio clip be removed? If not, should the IPA be changed? Is either appropriate? How can they possibly be ?? 22.214.171.124 17:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)