Talk:fetii

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.

---

Common misspelling of fetuses. Is it really all that common? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks like it: [1]. Might even be a correct alternate plural. --Yair rand 03:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come the f**k on! No one is going to take this resource seriously if we start calling an incorrect formation of an incorrect plural “a correct alternative”! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a hypercorrect plural, it's not really a misspelling either, it's just wrong, and seemingly unused or used very little. I'm dreading trying to find a third cite, as I imagine there is one. But it is as pointed out below, extremely rare. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It’s exactly that. (I didn’t actually say or think that it was a misspelling, in case that’s what you thought.) There’s no harm in having the entry, as long as in keeping it, we also proscribe it. My only criticism was of the suggestion that we should in any way call it “correct”. The (deprecated template usage) -us → (deprecated template usage) -i brain-o is totally understandable; why it becomes so frequently *(deprecated template usage) -ii is a little less transparent. It’s probably because of words like radii and gladii, where the first (deprecated template usage) i (which is part of the stem, not the case ending) is misinterpreted as part of the plural-marking. Clearly, it’s not just a spelling-based error — *(deprecated template usage) fetii shows that a second (deprecated template usage) i can be added where there wasn’t one before, and *penii shows that *(deprecated template usage) -ii is the spelt plural of an —əs ending. I’ll go add a usage note. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. The majority of those hits seem to be scannos (scannioi?). —Ruakh_TALK 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I never know whether to RFV or RFD misspellings. I count two usable Google Book hits that use it in English. So It'd have to be "(very rare) Misspelling of fetuses." which is just silly. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Google Groups Search. This term would pass with no problem. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted: No one has presented any cites whatsoever. —Ruakh_TALK 15:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* I've readded it with the requisite three citations.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate

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.

---

fetii

A rare misconstruction. —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of these abominations. Erroneous -ii pseudo-Latinate plurals are remarkably common. People who use these should be dissuaded somehow. For those reasons, I think this should be kept and proscribed. Also, FWIW, I don't reckon this is particularly rare. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you tagged it {{very|rare}}. I didn't check, myself; I just took your word for it. —Ruakh_TALK 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was probably going on b.g.c. You virtually never find them in properly edited, published works. They're quite common on UseNet, however.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking thereof, the outcome of this discussion will have an impact on penii, walrii, &c. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On Google Web 160K vs 24,200K or <1%. This is below my personal threshold for relative frequency for a "common" misspelling. The absolute frequency is fairly high though. "Misconstruction" is a useful descriptive label that conveys the undesirability of the form without requiring us to have any explicit criteria for "common misspelling", "alternative spelling", or "nonstandard". DCDuring TALK 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is: Misconstruction of what? It's better to define it as a "Misconstructed plural form of X.", I reckon. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As is, the entry fails to direct users to the normal English plural fetuses. 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How's this? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It sticks in my descriptivist craw, but the rest of me likes it. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Ruakh's revision soothe your descriptivist craw? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That goes down better, thanks. DCDuring TALK 11:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we conclude to keep this entry in its present form? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

kept DAVilla 05:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)