Talk:expontaneous
RFV discussion
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
This certainly seems to be a medical word. But the definition seems totally wrong. Not in the OED. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 08:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the usages that I can find seem to be mis-spellings of spontaneous, but "expontaneous" seems too common to be just a random error. I can't quite believe that it is a word, but I can't explain why it keeps occurring. Dbfirs 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RFV failed, sense replaced with correct sense. @Dbfirs: I assume the etymology here is parallel to that of spontaneous (q.v.), but with an explicit preposition ex (“out of, arising from”) rather than letting that be implicit in the use of the ablative case. See google books:"ex sponte", "ex sua sponte". I don't find it odd in the least that <exsp-> would become <exp->. —RuakhTALK 03:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)