Talk:cyun
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Obsolete form of scion. Curiously, the plural cyuns failed RFV, while the singular was never challenged. In my experience (though I don't necessarily agree with it), we don't normally do this, and allow unattested hypothetical inflections to stand as long as the lemma is legitimate. Equinox ◑ 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- In case of Latin there are already RFVs for inflected forms above. But well, it might be different for Latin:
- In Latin one sometimes has to know inflected forms to know the declension.
- In case of Latin words, especially words with Greek origin, the inflection can be disputed, i.e. it might be unclear how a hypothetical inflection would look like.
- There can be doubts whether or not a plural existed or exists. Even if English has water and waters, who know whether or not Latin has aqua and aquae or just a singular aqua? But one could most likely ask this for some English words as well.
- Similary in case of German the inflection can sometimes be disputed.
- So, to sum it up: RFVs for inflected forms can be justified and can make sense. -84.161.44.63 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- RFV failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)